CIHM 
Microfiche 
Series 
(IMonographs) 


ICIVJH 

Collection  de 
microfiches 
(monographies) 


Canadian  Inatituta  fr^  Hittorieal  Mleroraproduetlon.  /  Institut  Canadian  da  microraproduction.  historiquaa 


©1996 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes  /  Notes  technique  et  bibllographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best  original 
copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this  copy  which 
may  be  bibliographically  unique,  which  may  alter  any  of 
the  images  in  the  reproduction,  or  which  may 
significantly  change  the  usual  method  of  filming  are 
checked  below. 


D 

D 

D 
D 
0 

D 
D 

n 


Coloured  covers  / 
Couverture  de  couleur 

Covers  damaged  / 
Couverture  endommagde 

Covers  re^ored  and/or  laminated  / 
Couverture  restaurte  et/ou  pellicula 

Cover  title  missing  /  Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps  /  Cartes  gdographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)  / 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

Cokxjred  plates  and/or  illustrattons  / 
Planches  '^ou  lllustFattons  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material  / 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 

Only  editkm  available  / 
Seule  ^(fitkm  disponible 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortkm 
along  interior  margin  /  La  reliure  serr6e  peut 
causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la  distorsk>n  le  tong  de 
la  marge  intdrieure. 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoreAons  may  appear 
within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these  have 
been  omitted  from  fibning  /  II  se  peut  que  certaines 
pages  blanches  ajoutdes  tors  d'une  restauration 
apparaissent  dans  le  texle,  mais,  kxsque  cela  dtait 
possible,  ces  pages  n'ont  pas  M  (Hmdes. 


L'Institut  a  microfilmd  le  meilleur  examplaire  qu'il  lui  a 
6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Las  details  de  cet  exem- 
plaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du  point  de  vue  bibli- 
ographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier  une  image  reproduite, 
ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une  modifications  dans  la  m6th- 
ode  normale  de  filmage  sont  indiqute  ci-dessous. 

I     [      Cokiured  pages/ Pages  de  couleur 

I     I      Pages  damaged/ Pages  endommag6es 

I     I      Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
— '      Pages  restaurtes  et/ou  pelltouldes 

r^    Pages  discotoured,  stained  or  foxed  / 
'-^      Pages  d^cotortes,  tachetdes  ou  (Mqu^es 

I     I     Pages  detached/ Pages  d*tach6e8 

r^   Showthrough/ Transparence 

I     I      Quality  of  print  varies/ 

' — '      Quality  in^gale  de  I'impresston 


D 
D 


D 


Includes  supplementary  material  / 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppiementaire 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refitmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image  /  Les  pages 
totalement  ou  partiellement  obscurcies  par  un 
feuillet  d'en^ta.  une  pelure,  etc.,  ont  M  filmees 
k  nouveau  de  fagon  k  obtenir  la  meilleure 
image  possible. 

Opposing  pages  with  varying  colouration  or 
discolourations  are  filmed  twice  to  ensure  the 
best  possible  image  /  Les  pages  s'opposant 
ayant  des  colorations  variables  ou  des  decol- 
orations sont  film^es  deux  fois  afin  d'obtenir  la 
meilleur  image  possible. 


D 


AddHtonal  comments  / 
Commentaires  suppKmentaires: 


Thh  ittfli  it  f  iHiMd  at  tiM  raduction  ratio  etiackad  balow/ 

C«  docuntMit  tst  f  iima  au  taux  da  riduction  indiqu*  ei-da»oin. 


lOX 

^^^^ 

14X 

1«X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

y 

12X 

16X 

20X 

24X 

28X 

32X 

Th«  copy  fiimad  h«r«  has  b««n  r«pro4uc«d  thanks 
to  th«  g«n«ro«ity  of: 

National  I.lbrary  of  Canada 


L'axamplairo  f  ilm4  f  ut  raproduit  grico  i  la 
g4n«roiit*  da: 

Blbllothiqua  natlonalo  du  Canada 


Tha  imagas  appaaring  horo  ara  tha  bast  quality 
poMibIa  considaring  tha  condition  and  lagibility 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  kaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  apacificationa. 


Original  copiaa  in  printad  papor  covars  ara  fllmad 
baginning  with  tha  front  eovar  and  anding  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impraa- 
aion,  or  tha  back  covar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  original  copies  ara  filmad  baginning  on  flto 
first  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  imprs«- 
sion.  and  anding  on  tha  last  paga  with  a  printad 
or  Ulustratad  imprassion. 


Tha  last  racordad  frama  on  aach  microficha 
shall  contain  tha  symbol  ^^^  (maaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  tha  symbol  ▼  (maaning  "END"), 
whichavar  appliaa. 

Maps,  platas.  charts,  ate.  may  ba  filmad  at 
diffarant  reduction  ratios.  Thosa  too  larga  to  ba 
ontiraly  included  in  ona  axposuro  ara  filmad 
beginning  in  tha  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bonom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  imagas  suivantas  ent  M  reproduitas  avac  Is 
plus  grand  soin.  compta  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
da  la  nenetO  de  I'eJiemplaira  filmA.  et  an 
eonformito  avee  lea  eonditiona  du  eontrat  da 
filmage. 

Lee  eaemplairea  originaux  dont  le  eouverture  en 
pepier  est  imprimifte  sont  filmAs  en  commencant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
derniAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  la  second 
plat,  salon  la  cas.  Tous  las  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmAs  en  commencant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impreasion  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  derniire  paga  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  dee  symboles  suivants  spparaftra  sur  la 
demiire  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
caa:  le  symbols  -»  signifie  "A  SUIVRE".  le 
symbole  ▼  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartos.  planches,  tableaux,  etc..  peuvent  otre 
filmte  i  des  Mux  de  reduction  diffirents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  atra 
raproduit  an  un  saul  clichi.  il  est  film*  i  partir 
de  Tangle  supirieur  gauche,  de  gauche  ii  droite. 
et  de  haut  en  bas.  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'imeges  n^esseire.  Les  diegremmes  suivants 
Ulustrent  le  mSthode. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

MKROCOTY  mSOUITION  TiST  CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


/APPLIED    IIVMCjt,      Inc 

1653  Eosl  Main  Slr««t 

r.S        Rochester.  New  York        U609       USA 

(716)  482  -  0300  -  Phone 

(716)  288  -  S989  -  Fax 


iH  i1  1^  i*\  li  ^'    ^L8 


1^'  /f-    C.     Ct4nijAlL 


tAAO? 


f^O^  i9e$ 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 


THE   ETHICS   OF 
IMPERIALISM 

AN  ENQUIRY  WHETHER  CHRISTIAF  ETHICS 
AND  IMPERIALISM  ARE  ANTAGONISTIC 

BY 
ALBERT  B.  CABMAN 


BOSTON 
HEBBEBT    B.    TURNEB 
1  »0« 


i    CO 


CS7 


Copyright,  1906,  by 
Hbbbebt  B.  Tdbnxb  &  Co. 

AU  rigkti  reaerved 
nrmiD  at  statiobm'  hau. 


PvBusHBD  May,  1905 


The  PowtU  Pntt,  Oamkridge 


CONTENTS 


/. 

//. 

///. 

IF. 

V, 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 
X. 
XI. 
XII. 

XIII. 
XIV. 
XV. 


The  Paradox  . 

Is  There  an  Explanation? 

Spencer  on  Egoism  and  Altruism 

The  True  Distinction 

The  Fighting  Unit    . 

The  Folly  of  Altruism 

Egoism  and  Christian  Ethics 

The  Individual  and  the  Fighting 
Unit  ... 

The  Nation  the  Fighting  Unit 
Imperialism    . 

The  Citizen  and  Imperialism 

The  Social  Reformer  and  Im- 
perialism   . 

Imperialism  and  Ultimate  Peac 
The  Patriotic  Instinct 
Individual  Liberty   . 


9 

H 

24 

38 

49 
62 

72 

77 
89 

99 
116 

127 
141 

153 

164 


I 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 


I. 


THE  PARADOX 


Does  there  not  appear  to  b*.    «i, 

^^  «o.e  Jar;  ^^r,  -  «•■: 

~do„aI  boundarie?arr  P~P''-'8"0'« 
of  race     l7.  ^T  ""'^  "°  difference 

principle  i.  ...he  bird  o  "J^ " 'a! 
Recess  „,^  „  „^^^         -^    a 

^w.    and  the  hated  people  of  Sam.,j 
presented   ,0  the  elect  „f  ?  j™  "*** 
ofd.eir..brothe^;'"/,^^Jf»«'yP" 

9 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPEHIALISM 

equal  rights  to  all  people.  It  refuses  to  see 
inferiority  of  rights  in  color,  race  or  feeble- 
ness. Its  message  is— "One  Father  and  one 
family." 

The  Imperialistic  spirit,  on  the  other  hand, 
makes   much   of  narional    boundaries    and 
differences  of  race.    Its  recognition  of  an 
enemy  is  to  prepare  for  war  with  him.     Its 
working  principle  is  the  division  of  man  into 
hostile  nations;  and  it  always  has  the  hated 
people  of  some  modem  "Samaria"  to  present 
to  the  "ebct"  of  its  own  household  as  types 
ofthe  public  enemy.    It  teaches  the  essential 
inequality  of  men,  the  duty  of  recognising 
that  inequality,  the  duty  of  doing  unto  some 
others  precisely  what  you  hope  they  will  not 
be  able  to  do  unto  you,  the  refusal  of  equal 
rights  to  some  people.    It  sees  inferiority  of 
rights  in  color,  race  and  feebleness— especially 
in  the  latter.    Its  message  is— "One  Father, 
and  He  is  on  our  side! " 

The  teaching  of  ChJsrian  Ethics  is  both 
philanthropic  and  missionary.  It  regards 
the  'requirement  to  deal  justly  with  all 
peoples  as  a  cold  and  inadequate  rendering 

10 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

of  the  duty  laid  upon  the  Christian.    He 
must  deal  more  than  justly— he  must  deal 
generously  with  all  peoples  who  on  earth  do 
dwell;  and  the  greater  the  need  of  the  people- 
spiritually,  mentally  or  physically— the  greater 
the  demand  upon  his  zeal  and  charity.    That 
this  often  requires  a  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the 
Christian,    is   a   common-place.    The   mis- 
sionaiy   does   not,   presumably,   go   out   in 
search  of  personal  advantage.    He  goes  out 
to  die— if  need  be— that  men  of  other  nations, 
races  and  languages  may  come  into  their 
nghts.    And  in  doing  this,  he  has  the  rap- 
turous   approval    of  pracJcally   the    entire 
sentiment  of  the  Christian  worid. 

The  teaching  of  Imperialism  is  neither 
philanthropic  nor  missionary.  It  regards 
the  requirement  to  deal  justly  with  all  peoples 
as  temporarily  suspended  when  the  «  rights  " 
of  any  other  people  rise  as  barriers  to  what 
we  call  "the  defensive  growth"  of  the  Im- 
penal  whole.  The  notion  of  "  dealing  gener- 
ously" with  an  enemy,  whose  success  is  our 
humiliation,  would  never  enter  the  Imperial 
mind.    The  Imperialist  makes  his  sacrifices 

II 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

in  order  to  crush  the  foe.  He  goes  out  to 
die—if  need  be— that  men  of  other  nations, 
races  and  languages  may  be  deprived  of  what, 
were  his  case  their*s,  he  would  regard  as  his 
rights.  And  in  doing  this,  he  has  the  thunder- 
ous approval  of  pracrically  the  enrire  sentiment 
of  the  Imperialist— and  Christian— worid. 

The  attitudes  assumed  by  the  representative 
of  Chrisrian  ethics  and  of  the  Imperialistic 
spirit  respectively  toward  an  ""  ^erior  race" 
illuminate  this  point.    The  .nissionaiy  calls 
them  "brothers;"  but,  if  they  presume  to 
demand  the  rights  of  brotherhood,  the  soldier 
shoots  them  for  "rebels."    The  missionary 
preaches  "equality;"  but  the  soldier  seizes 
superiority.    The  missionary,  believing  that 
the  native  religion  is  an  evil,    itacks  it;  but 
the  soldier  avoids  trouble  and  seeks  popularity 
by  respecting  it.    In  a  word,  the  missionaiy— 
to  the  best  of  his  lights— seeks  the  good  of  the 
"inferior  race;"  while  the  soldier  seeks  first 
the  supremacy  of  the  flag.     Yet  the  same 
people  send  out  both  the  missionaiy  and  the 
soldier;  and  as  large  a  majority    of  them 
support  the  one  as  support  the  other. 

12 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

I  have  used  the  missionary  here  as  the 
representative  of  the  attitude  of  mir  i  of  the 
mass  of  the  people  at  home  who  accept  what 
we  call   Christian   ethics.     But,  of  course, 
I  know  quite  well  that  the  livery  of  Christ  is 
worn  on  occasion  by  the  Imperialist.    Like 
the  people,  who,  as  I  have  mentioned  above, 
are  as  unanimous  for  Imperialism  as  they  are 
1  Dr  Christian  ethics,  the  Church,  being  com- 
posed of  (he  people,  exhibits  the  same  remark- 
able phenomenon.     But  that  does  not  alter 
the   fart   that   the   teachings   of  Chrisrian 
ethics— as  we  hear  and  accept  them  in  the 
calm  of  peace— are  diametrically  opposed  ac 
nearly  every  point  touching  foreign  peoples  to 
the    pracdcal    code    of   Imperialism.    The 
messenger  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  may,  at 
rimes,   wear  an   army  chaplain's   uniform; 
but  his  normal  message  is  still  Peace  and 
Brotherly  Love. 


13 


II. 

IS  THERE  AN  EXPLANATION? 

As  intimated  in  the  last  chapter,  the  p.-,ra- 
dox  which  challenges  our  attention  is  the 
indisputable  fact  that  practically  all  Christian 
peoples   are    Imperialistic.    There    are,    of 
course,  some  logical  minds  which  find  them- 
selves   forced    by    sincere    and    thoughtful 
deductions  from  current  Christian  doctrine 
to  offer  a  heroic  opposition  to  Imperialism, 
just  as  there  are  ot'ier  minds  which  are  driven 
into  the  same  attitude  by  the  manner  in  which 
some  of  the  practical  results  of  Imperialism 
bar  the  progress  of  social  reform;  but  it  is 
nevertheless  true  that  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  accept  at  once  Christian  ethics  and 
Imperialistic  patriotism. 

When  there  is  no  specific  Imperialistic 
proposal  to  the  fore,  what  is  commonly 
regarded  as  the  higher  moral  ground  of  the 
Christian  and  Radical  atritudes  secures  so 

14 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

much  more  attention  for  the  teaching  of  their 
representatives  that  we  might  be  inclined  to 
think — especially  in  Anglo-Saxon  countries — 
that  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  people 
were  anti-Imperialistic.  But  the  raising  of 
the  flag  over  a  cf  ncrete  case  of  Imperialism 
quickly  dispels  this  delusion.  A  Boer  war, 
a  Cuban  war,  a  Franco-German  war,  a 
Japanese  occupation  of  Corea,  shows  the 
whole  people  to  be  m  favor  of  a  movement 
which  promises  to  strengthen  the  national 
prestige.  And  that,  in  a  word,  is  the  purpose 
of  Imperialism.  The  Imperialist  wanti?  to 
make  his  own  nation  more  powerful. 

Now  this  is  only  done,  in  this  world  of 
relative  national  strengths,  by  making  some 
other  nation  weaker.  We  cease  to  be  our 
brother's  keeper;  and  we  seek  to  leave  him 
on  the  field  crippled,  if  not  dying.  The 
United  States  grew  strong  at  the  expense  of 
Spain;  Britain  grew  strong  at  the  grave-side 
of  the  Boer  ReiDublics;  Germany  grew  strong 
by  the  crippling  of  France.  Yet  every  one 
of  these  nations — those  who  sdFered  as  well 
as   those   who   struck — accept    with  barely 

15 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

a  dissenting  voice,  and,  in  practically  all 
cases  except  those  in  the  Imperialistic  field, 
act  upon,  the  principles  of  Christian  ethics. 
They  love  their  "brother,"  and  >  at  the 
bidding  of  Imperialism,  t..ey  hate  him;  they 
"keep"  him,  and  they  kill  him;  they  face 
death  to  "save  his  soul,"  and  they  face  death 
to  shoot  his  life  out  at  the  very  moment  when 
the  brute  passions  of  a  great  mutual  killing 
are  sweeping  his  soul  like  a  cyclone. 

Is  there  any  answer  to  this  riddle  ? 

Are  the  Christian  Imperialists  in  a  position 
of  hopeless  inconsistency  ?  Do  we  sys^emati- 
caily  preach  one  thing  and  do  quite  another  ? 
Or,  to  put  it  more  fairly,  do  we  preach  and 
pracnce  Christian  ethics  in  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,  only  to  become  savages  "when  the  guns 
begin  to  shoot  ?"  Is  imperialism  an  eruption 
of  the  pagan  and  the  barbarian  in  us,  is  some 
solemnly  assert?  Is  patriotism  an  evidence 
of  narrow-mindedness,  an  ignoble  primal 
passion,  eternally  at  war  with  the  higher  and 
purer  truth  which  teaches  us  to  always  seek 
first  the  good  of  others  ? 

To  answer  these  questions  in  the  affirmative 

l6 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

would  be  to  w  gravely  arraign  the  .anity  and 
good  faith  of  practically  all  European  peoplei 
that  we  .hould  mott  carefully  examine  the 
ground,  which  underlie  the  two  .yttems  of 
conviction  which  we  have  seen  are  apparently 
so  hopele««ly  at  variance,  before  deciding  that 
they  are  really  in  that  position.    What  we 
might   call   the   instincts   of  htimanity-no 
matter  how  little  we  may  value  its  opinions- 
are  not  to  be  dismissed  lightly.    Our  instinas 
are  tV^  accumulated  teaching  of  generations 
of  expencncet  and  the  very  fact  that  the  races 
•   uch  possess  them  have  survived,  is  prima 
^cte  evidence  that  their  tendency  is  toward 
'rvival.    Now  we  have  here  two  veiy  strong 
i...tincts-the  instinct  of  patriotism  which 
leads  a  man  to  fight  for  his  countiy,  and  the 
instmct  of  brotherhood  which  leads  him  to 
help  a  brother  man.    They  both  shine  out 
brilliantly  on  the  battle-field-kill  an  enemy 
and   succor   a   comrade.    Here   they  work 
toother,  the  one  complementing  the  other: 
and  we  feel  no  contradiction  between  them 
until  we  are  told  to  "  love  our  enemy"  in  the 
name  of  human   brotherhood.    To   succor 

17 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

a  comrade  is  to  help  in  the  work  of  killing  our 
enemy;   but   to   "love   our   enemy'* — ^what 
a  trifling  with  words  it  would  be  to  pretend 
to  love  him  while  dogging  him  from  boulder  to 
boulder  in  a  fierce  hope  of  putting  a  bullet  in 
his  brain! 
Yet  to-morrow  we  may  be  "loving"  him. 
The  war  may  be  over!  The  question  of 
national  supremacy  may  be  settled  forever; 
and  we  may  be  helping  him  re-stock  the  farms 
we  destroyed,  we  may  be  shipping  out  boat- 
loads of  teachers  to  equip  his  schools,  we  may 
— if  we  think  he  needs  it — be  sending  him 
missionaries  to  inculcate  the  true  religion  of 
Eternal  Peace  and  Universal  Brotherhood. 
Yet  it  may  be  possible  that  to-morrow  the  war 
will  be  over,  and  we  shall  be  still  hating  him. 
We  may  not  he  helping  him  re-stock  his 
farms,  but  may  be  exacting  a  war  indemnity 
from    his    crushed    population.    The    only 
"missionaries"  we  shall  send  to  him  will  be 
military  spies;  and,  as  for  teaching,  we  shall 
bid  him  con  the  stem  lessons  our  cannon 
have  just  taught. 
Now    what    will    make    the    difl?erence? 

i8 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

Just  the  single,  simple  fact  that  in  the  one 
case  we  shall  believe  that  we  have  finally 
conquered;  and  in  the  other  case  we  shall  fear 
that  the  struggle  way  be  renewed  again.    In 
a  word,  it  is  only  when  our  "enemy"  ceases 
to  be  our  enemy  that  we  love  him.    That  is 
we  "love"  him  when  we  can  "carry  comfort 
to  him     with    no  national  disadvantage  to 
ourselves.    We  will  do  nothing  for  him  while 
he  IS  an  enemy  which  will  strengthen  his  power 
of  effective  enmity. 

The  thing  which  stands  out  most  boldly 
from  all  this,  is  the  sharp  and  decisive  manner 
in  which  brotherly  love  stops  at  precisely  the 
point  where  national  danger  begins.     It  is 
patriotism,  and  patriotism  only,  that  narrows 
the  bounds  of  brotherly  love.     We  permit 
no  other  influence  or  passion  to  authoritatively 
set  a  limit  to  what  we  call  "a  Christian  duty  " 
Other  passions  may  lead  to  a  neglect  of  duty  • 
but  we  regard  their  influence  in  this  respect 
as  evil  and  are  ashamed  of  their  temporary 
dommanct.    On    the   other   hand,    we    are 
proud  of  our  patriotism;  and  we  invite  the 
official  representatives  of  Christian  ethics  to 

19 


I 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

pray  for  its  success  in  accomplishing  the  act 
of  ultimate  anti-brotherhood. 

This  suggests  that  there  is  an  essential 
difference  in  our  minds  between  our  relations 
with  the  public  enemy  and  our  relations  with 
all  other  men.    We  are  as  pioud  of  enmity 
toward  him  as  we  are  of  charity  toward  others. 
An  entire  change  comes  over  our  mental 
attitude  when  we  cross  the  national  boundary 
into  the  sphere  of  influence  of  another  centre 
of  Imperialism.     Now  this  is  not  accidental 
nor  individual;  it  is  regular  and  universal. 
It  is  a  law— not  an  exception  to  a  law.    And 
it  ought  to  furnish  us  with  some  clue  to  the 
solution— if  solution  there  be—of  the  riddle 
with  which  we  opened  this  volume. 

The  fact  which  most  outstands  from  the 
operations  of  this  law  is  that  Altruism— that 
is,  the  caring  first  for  the  interests  of  others- 
is  under  some  circumstances  suspended,  and 
suspended  with  the  approval  of  our  moral 
judgment.  Altruism,  under  certain  con- 
ditions, becomes  treason.  Now  we  have 
been  accustomed  to  think  of  Altruism  as  the 
basic  principle  of  our  Christian  ethics;  and 

20 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

to  imagine  that,  without  it,  all  that  is  best  in 
our  moral  code  would  disappear.    Still  here 
we  find  it  in  direct  collision  with  the  equally 
valued  moral  principle  of  Patriotism;  and 
one  of  them  must  certainly  make  way  for  the 
other.    War  has  never  been  defined  as  con- 
crete Altruism.    Yet  the  universal  judgment 
of  mankind   shows  in  practice  that  when 
the  ri^oice  comes  between  the  two,  it  decides 
for .   iperialistic  patriotism  and  against  Altru- 
ism, and  so  decides  with  that  inner  sense  of 
moral  uplift  which  approves  its  action  as  right. 
Now  if  we  finally  tie  what  we  have  called 
Christian  ethics  up  with  Altruism,  it  is  plain 
that  we  have  doomed  Christian  ethics  to 
a  real  collapse  at  this  point.     It  is  not  merely 
that  the  teaching  of  Christian  ethics  will  be 
Ignored.    It  is  far  more  serious  than  that. 
It  is,  in  a  word,  that  we  must  prepare  for 
the    declaration,    on    the    authority   of  the 
universal  human  conscience,  that  at  this  point 
Chnsti^n    ethics    becomes    immoral!    Now 
a  system  of  ethics  hung  upon  principles  which 
are  not  universally  applicable,  is  surely  in 
a  pitiable  condition.     It  cannot  claim  to  be 

21 


:.f 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

more  than  a  makeshift-a  tissue  of  experi- 
mental patch-work— an  adventitious  creation 
which  may  go  to  pieces  at  any  moment. 
ii.thical  principles  are,  in  this  respect,  like 
floatmg  boats— one  hole  is  sufficient  to  sink 
them.  If  they  are  not  universal  and  eternal, 
they  are  not  principles. 

The    long    experience    of   the    Christian 
worid  has  led  it  to  value  what  it  calls  Christian 
ethics;  and  it  would  probably  be  quite  willing 
to  consider  what  at  first  sight  might  be  un- 
pleasant possibilities  if  it  imagined  that  they 
contained  an  explanation  which  would  save 
sound   and  whole   this   accustomed   ethical 
system.     In  order  to  do  this,  the  explanation 
mustharmonize  brotherly  love  with  patriotism. 
Christian  ethics  with  Imperialism.  Obviously, 
this  must  be  done  by  hanging  the  whole  upon 
some  other  principle  than  that  which  has 
plainly  broken  down— viz.;  Altruism;  and  by 
abandoning  as  erroneous  the  alleged  ethical 
teaching    which    this    false    philosophy    of 
Altruism  has  set  up  against  the  instincts  of 
patnotism.    The  only  other  principle  that 
can  be  tried  is,  of  course,  Egoism;  by  no 

22 


iti 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

means  a  novel  experiment,  or,  to  many  minds, 
an  agreeable  one.  But  the  case  is  desperate; 
and  there  is  novelty  at  least  in  the  widespread 
desire  of  earnest  patriots  and  earnest  believers 
in  Christian  ethics  to  save  their  moral  sanity 
by  finding  an  ethical  principle  which  will 
justify  at  once  the  sacrifices  of  the  worker  in 
the  slum  and  the  sacrifices  of  the  soldier  on 
tlu  battle-field. 

We  shall  begin,  too,  with  the  advantage 
of  knowing  that  Egoism  can  have  no  quarrel 
with  Imperialism.  At  that  end,  the  bridge 
is  already  secure;. 


23 


III. 

SPENCER  ON  EGOISM  AND 
ALTRUISM 
We  cannot  do  better  than  begin  with  the 
safe  practice  of  defining  our  teims.    This  is 
all  the  more  necessary  in  the  case  of  Egoism 
and  Altruism  because  of  the  fact  that  hardly 
any  two  persons  appear  to  mean  precisely 
the  same  thing  by  them.    One  will  speak  of 
them  as  if  Egoism  were  synonymous  with 
selfishness  and  Altruism  with  unselfishness. 
Another  will   see  clearly  enough    that  en- 
lightened Egoism  may-nay,  must-be  unsel- 
hsh;  that,m  a  word,noman  can  inanadvanced 
state  of  society  serve  his  own  interests  best  by 
wholly  disregarding  the  interests  of  others; 
but  he  will  follow  this  extension  of  the  Egoistic 
conception  so  far  as  to  hold  that  every  act 
must  m  reality  be  Egoistic,  because  no  act  can 
be  performed  by  a  free  being,  unless,  eveiy- 
thing  being  considered,  he  prefers  so  to  act 
And  between  these  two  extreme  points— that 

24 


I 

l! 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

of  the  limited  Egoism  of  selfishness,  and  that 
of  the  unlimited  Egoism  in  which  preference 
to  act  is  made  the  test  instead  of  the  serving 
of  one's  own  interests  by  the  action—there 
are  many  shades. 

The  terms  as  I  intend  to  use  them  in  this 
discussion,  may  be  defined  as  follows:— 

Egoism  is  preferring  one's  own  interests 
to  the  interests  of  others.  This  may  be 
shown  by  killing  a  man  in  order  to  eat  him, 
or  by  co-operating  with  him  in  order  to  get 
much  more  to  eat,  or  by  co-operating  with 
society  in  order  to  get  immensely  greater 
returns  in  security  to  life  and  in  happiness. 

Altruism  is  preferring  the  interests  of 
others  to  one's  own.  Logically,  it  meets 
commercial  rivalry  with  voluntary  bankruptcy, 
and  personal  rivalry  with  suicide.  It  is  not 
to  be  confounded  either  with  the  mere  doing 
of  things  for  others  which  is  usually  an 
exhibirion  of  enlightened  Egoism,  or  the 
impossible  theory  that  a  man  can  do  what 
he  would  rather  not  do  in  order  that  others 
may  benefit.  A  man  always  does  what,  taking 
into  consideration  all  the  forces  which  play 

25 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

upon  his  mind,  he  would  rather  do.  But 
when  he  prefers  to  sacrifice  his  own  interests— 
that  is,  his  chances  for  life  and  happiness— 
to  those  of  others,  he  is  acting  Altruistically. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  these  definitions  do 
not  coincide  with  the  conceptions  of  Egoism 
and  Altruism  with  which  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer 
works.     He  defines  Altruism  as  "being  all 
action  which,  in  the  normal  course  of  things, 
benefits  others  instead  of  benefiting  self." 
(Data    of   Ethics);   and    then   proceeds   to 
make  clear  how  comprehensive  he  intends 
this  definition  to  be  by  stating  that  under 
Altruism  he  takes  "in  the  acts  by  which 
offspring    are    preserved    and    the    species 
maintained."    "Moreover,  among  these  acts 
must  be  included,"  he  goes  on,  "not  such  only 
as  are  accompanied  by  consciousness  but  also 
such  as  conduce  to  the  welfare  of  oflFspring 
without  mental  representation  of  the  welfare 
—acts  of  automatic  altruism  as  we  might  call 
them."     Farther  along,  he  says,—"  Whatever 
action,   unconscious  or  conscious,   involves 
expenditure  of  individual  life  to  the  end  of 
increasing  life  in  other  mdividuals,  is  un- 

26 


THE  ETHICS   OF  IMPERIALISM 

questionably  altruistic  in  a  sense,  if  not  in 
the  usual  sense."  This  Mr.  Spencer  follows, 
as  is  his  custom,  with  illuminating  examples. 
Low  forms  of  animal  life  which  propagate  by 
gemmation  or  fission,  in  which  "parents 
bequeath  parts  of  their  bodies,  more  or  less 
organized,  to  form  offspring  at  the  cost  of 
their  own  individualities,"  are  given  as 
examples  of  physical  Altruism.  Where  "  loss 
of  bodily  substance"  accompanies  birth  or 
rearing  of  offspring,  Mr.  Spencer  always  sees 
Altruism.  "When  a  mother  yields  milk  by 
absorbing  which  the  young  one  grows,  it 
cannot  be  questioned  that  there  is  also  a 
material  sacrifice."  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to 
say  that  "though  material  sacrifice  is  not 
manifest  when  the  young  are  benefited  by 
activities  on  their  behalf;  yet,  as  no  effort  can 
be  made  without  an  equivalent  loss  of  tissue, 
and  as  bodily  loss  is  proportionate  to  the 
expenditure  which  takes  place  without  reim- 
bursement in  food  consumed,  it  follows  that 
efforts  made  in  fostering  offspring  do  really 
resent  a  part  of  the  parental  substance; 
which  is  now  given  indirectly  instead  of 
directly."  vj 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERULISM 

Thus  it  is  clear  that  Mr.  Spencer's  con- 
ception of  Altruism  is  the  performance  of  any 
act  which  carries  material  benefit  to  another. 
A  father  walking  through  an  orchard  with  his 
boy,  reaches  up  and  plucks  two  apples,  thus 
makmg    "an    efFon"    which    imphes    "an 
equivalent  loss  of  tissue."    With  his  fore- 
finger and  thumb,  he  passes  one  of  the  apples 
to  his  boy,  keeping  the  other  for  himself 
between  his  other  fingers  and  his  palm.    Mr 
Spencer  would  say  that  his  fore-finger  and 
thumb  were  Altruistically  employed,  and  that 
his  other  fingers  and  palm  were  Egoisrically 
employed.    He  appears  to  take  no  account 
of  any  other  element  in  the  act  but  that  of 
material  benefit.     Yet  the  father  may  have 
received  ten  rimes  the  pleasure  from  giving 
the  apple  to  the  .  oy  as  from  keeping  the  other 
for  himself.    As   he  watches   the  lad   bite 
greedily  into  the  juicy  fruit,  he  may,  indeed, 
decide  to  slip  the  other  apple  into  his  pocket 
instead  of  earing  it  himself,  with  the  intention 
of  subsequently  giving  himself  the  pleasure 
of  seeing  the  lad  enjoy  another  apple. 
It  is  a  surprise  to  find  Mr.  Spencer  thus 

28 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

ignoring  the  Spencerian  test  of  happiness. 

He  has  previously  told  us,  in  discussing  the 

attitudes  of  the  pessimist  and  the  optimist 

respecting  life,  that  "the  justification  for  life 

turns  on   this   issue — ^whether  the   average 

consciousness  rises  above  indifference  point 

into  pleasurable  feeling,  or  falls  below  it  into 

painf  u!  feeling."    That  is,  the  measure  of  life 

is  the  amount  of  happiness  it  produces.    In 

fact,  the  giving  of  material  benefits  by  one  to 

another  implies  that  these  benefits  will  either 

produce  happiness  directly  for  the  receiver,  or 

else  will  sustain  life  which  is  only  valuable 

because  it  results  in  an  average  surplus  of 

happiness.   An  ''Altruism  "  which  consisted  in 

pairing  with  a  material  substance  to  another, 

which  produced   more  pain  than  pleasure, 

would-  not  be  Altruism  at  all.    If  we  could 

conceive  of  the  case  of  a  man  who  should  kill 

himself  in  a  neighbour's  house  with  a  view 

to  making  the  house  distasteful  to  its  owner 

ever  after,  we  should  have  "an  expenditure 

of  individual  life  "  for  its  effect  upon  another; 

but  we  should  not  call  it  an  example     of 

Altruism  but  of  ingenious  enmity.    The  very 

29 


:i(i 


! 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

idea  of  Altniitm  impliet  the  conferrinR  of 
a  benefit  on  the  "other;"  and  a  benefit  implie. 
-according  to  Mr.  Spencer-happiness.  It 
i»  neither  the  sacrifice  of  material  substance, 
nor  the  giving  of  this  material  substance  to 
another,  which  is  the  test;  but  the  parting 
with  happiness,  or  the  material  of  happiness, 
for  the  benefit  of  another. 

Now  the  father  who  plucks  an  apple  for  his 
boy  IS  performing  an  act  which  makes  him 
(the  father)  happy.    He  is  not  parting  with, 
or  reducing,  his  own  happiness.     This  father 
IS,  of  course,  diflferent  in  character  from  the 
father  who  would  prefer  to  eat  all  the  apples 
himself;  just  as  a  man  who  enjoys  good  music 
IS  different  m  mental  constitution  from  a  man 
who  does  not.     But  for  a  man  who  does  not 
enjoy  music  to  regard  his  musical  neighbour 
as  Altruistic  because  he  goes  with  his  wife  to 
a  concert,  would  be  no  more  absurd  than  for 
a  father  without  love  for  his  children  to 
descnbe  the  giving  of  the  apple  in  the  above 
incident  as  Altruistic.    Both  men  are  seeking 
happiness  by  satisfying  certain  appetites  with- 
in themselves;  and  the  fact  that  one  results  in 

30 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERUUSM 

giving  food  to  a  child  and  the  other  in  giving 
pleasure  to  a  woman,  is  largely  accidental  and 
irrelevant. 

Students  of  Spencer  will  remember  to  what 
a  pass  this  conception  of  Altruism  brings  the 
great  thinker.    He  cannot  make  Altruism 
a  universal  moral  principle,  for  it  would  lead 
to  suicide;   but  neither  can   he  make   his 
emasculated  Egoism,  stripped  of  such  neces- 
sary duties  as  production  and  care  of  offspring, 
a  universal  principle  either,  for  it  would  lead 
to  the  obliteration  of  the  race  in  one  generation. 
So  he  proposes  a  present  compromise  and 
a  future  conciliation.    We  are  to  have  neither 
too  much  Egoism  nor  too  much  Altruism 
until  that  happy  state  comes  about  in  which 
opportunities  for  Altruism  will  grow  so  rare 
that  they  will  be  Egoistically  sought.     But 
even  then  Mr.  Spencer  does  not  quite  abandon 
the  "virtue "  of  Altruism.    Opportunities  for 
Altruism  will,  under  such  conditions,  as  we 
have  said,  be  sought  for  the  pleasure  they  will 
yield;  but,  as  they  will  be  scarce,  each  will 
take  care  "that  others  shall  have  their  oppor- 
tunities for  Altruistic  satisfaction."    That  is, 

31 


ill 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

we  shall  sacrifice  ourselves   by  restraining 
a  desire  to  sacrifice  ourselves  in  order  that 
others  may  have  this  opportunity  of  sacri- 
ficing themselves.    But  what  of  the  others  ? 
They    must    then    sacrifice    themselves    by 
restraining  their  desire  to  sacrifice  themselves 
in  the  opportunity  in  which  we  have  already 
sacrificed  ourselves  by  restraining  our  desire 
to  sacrifice  ourselves  in  order  that  the  others 
might  sacrifice  themselves,  that  the  opportu- 
nity may  come  back  to  us  again  and  that  we 
may  enjoy  the  pleasure  of  sacrificing  oursc'ves; 
and  so  on  ad  infinitum.    Apparently  Altruistic 
actions  would,  in  a  perfect  society  of  the 
Spencer  model,  be  handed  back  and  forth  and 
never  get  done  at  all. 

Now  would  not  Mr.  Spencer  have  emerged 
in  a  more  logical  position  if  he  had  adhered 
to  his  usual  doctrine  that  life  must  be  stated 
m  terms  of  happiness.?  Under  this  rule. 
Egoism  would  not  be  limited  to  the  keeping 
of  material  benefits  for  one's  self,  but  would 
be  defined  as  the  preferring  of  one's  interests 
to  those  of  others;  and  "interests"  would, 
m  this  case,  be  at  least  as  broad  as  the  pre- 

32 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

servation  of  life  and  the  aui^rnentatiou  of 
happiness.    When  a  man    «ei  former]  ;n  act 
then  which  brought  him  more  hap^^iije  }s  than 
it  cost  him  in  the  happiness-purchasing  power 
of  the  "  bodily  substance  "  it  exhausted,  no  one 
would  think  of  calling  it  Altruistic.    It  would 
be  the  purest  Egoism;  though  it  might  be  that 
higher  form  of  Egoism  which  understands 
that   the   greatest   pleasures   come   through 
unselfishness.    The  father  plucking  an  apple 
for  his  boy  would  be  Egoistically  enjoying 
himself;  so  would  the  mother  nursing  her 
babe;  so  would  the  bird  building  a  nest  or  the 
hen  laying  an  egg. 

How  it  has  come  about  that  living  creatures 
have  appetites  which  result  in  the  propagation 
and  preservation  of  the  species,  is  no  mystery 
to  the  evolutionist.  Obviously  only  such 
species  as  performed  these  acts  could  survive; 
and  those  which  happened  to  enjoy  their 
performance  would  naturally  do  so  with  more 
frequency  and  assiduity  than  others  who  did 
not  enjoy  it,  with  the  result  that,  in  competition 
with  these  other  species,  they  tended  to 
survive.    This  is  precisely  the  same  process 

33 


i 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

that  produced  all  of  our  healthful  appetites. 
The  animals  which  enjoyed  eating  certain 
kinds  of  healthful  foods  were  more  eager  in 
looking  them  up  and  devouring  them  than 
were  other  animals  whose  enjoyment  in 
eating  them  was  mild  or  who  enjoyed  less 
health-g-ving  sorts  of  food,  with  the  result  that 
the  animals  with  the  stronger  and  better- 
directed  appetites  tended  to  survive,  while 
those  with  the  weak  or  misdirected  appetites 
have  disappeared. 

Now  happiness  is  to  a  very  large  degree 
secured    by    the    satisfaction    of   appetites, 
whether  it  be  an  appetite  for  food  or  for  the 
drama   or  for  family   affection   or  for  the 
approval  of  the  community  or  for  the  rearing 
of  children  or  for  "doing  good"  to  others. 
There  is,  of  course,  a  distinction  between 
the  man  whose  appetites  are  entirely  personal, 
and   the  man  whose  appetites  are  largely 
communal.    We  call  the  first  selfish  and  the 
second  unselfish;  and  there  is  usually  a  mild 
general  pressure  which  discourages  the  sur- 
vival of  the  first  and  encourages  the  survival 
of  the  second.     But  is  not  this  a  distinction 

34 


m 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

very  like  that  between  a  musical  man  and 
non-musical   man?    The  one— the  musical 
man— has  a  capacity  for  happiness  which  the 
other  lacks.    It  is  better  for  the  community 
that  the  former  and  not  the  latter  should 
survive.    Still  is  there  any  tremendous  ethical 
distinction  between  the  act  of  the  non-musical 
man  who  stays  away  from  a  concert,  and  that 
of  the  musical  man  who  attends  every  good 
concert  he  can,  and  so  helps  to  increase  the 
chances  to  hear  good  music  in  the  community .? 
Both  men  are  guided  by  their  appetites;  both 
men  are  seeking  happiness.     Would  a  system 
of  natural  ethics  find  its  grc        ,\\ey  of  division 
between    the    actions    of  two    men? 

Would  we  call  the  non-musical  man,  who 
prefers,  perhaps,  to  gather  flowers  in  the 
forest;  an  Egoist;  and  the  musical  man,  who 
sits  in  a  trance  through  a  Wagnerian  opera, 
an  Altruist;  simply  because  it  is  better  for  the 
community  to  cultivate  music  than  to  decimate 
the  flowers  ? 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  distinction 
between  Egoism  and  Altruism  is  the  great 
hemispherical  division  of  ethics.    The  line 

35 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

between  them  should  be  drawn  at  the  point 
of  the  deepest  natural  division.      Now  as  we 
look  around  the  whole  sphere  for  the  line 
of  widest  division,  do  we  find  nothing  wider 
than  that  which  separates  the  man     .hose 
appetites  are  selfish  from  him  whose  appetites 
are  unselfish  ?    The  division  here,  broad  as  it 
seems  in  effect,  is  seldom  discernible  at  all  in 
the  motives  of  the  actors.     Heredity  and  early 
environment  h^ve  made  one  man  selfish,  and 
the   same  forces   have   made   another   man 
unselfish;  and  each  seeks  happiness  in  his  own 
way.    The  fact  is  that  the  selfish  man  very 
often  makes  a  greater  struggle  against  his 
natural  inclination  than  the  unselfish  man. 
If  the  Altruism  of  acts  is  to  be  measured  by  the 
sacrifices  they  necessitate  in  order  that  others 
may  benefit,  then  the  selfish  man  is  often  far 
more   Altruistic   than    his    neighbor   whose 
nature  perpetually   urges   him  to  deeds  of 
neighborliness   and    philanthropy.     In   fact, 
the    more    Altruistic — using    the    word    as 
Mr.  Spencer  would — a  man  is  by  nuure, 
the  less  Altruistic  is  he  apt  to  be  in  motive. 
Surely  what  we  have  here  is  not  a  gieat, 

36 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERULISM 

deep-cutting  ethical  distinction,  but  the  vary- 
ing results  of  the  processes  of  evolution. 
And  these  same  evolutionary  processes  will 
gradually  eliminate  the  selfish  and  develop 
the  unselfish;  for  the  man  with  the  highest 
capacity  for  communal  life,  is  the  man  who 
will  tend  to  survive.  We  must  look  elsewhere 
for  our  wide  valley  of  ethical  distinction. 


Z7 


:r!: 


IV. 

THE  TRUE  DISTINCTION. 

Let  us  then  push  on,  with  this  measure  of 
life  by  the  happiness  it  will  produce  in  our 
hands;  and  see  where  it  will  bring  us.    So 
long  as  a  man  is  seeking  self-preservation  and 
happiness,  he  is  Egoistic.     But  let  us  suppose 
that  he  prefers  above  his  own  preservation 
and  happiness,  the  preservation  and  happiness 
of  others— what  then  ?    Have  we  not  here 
leaped  a  great  gulf  ?    And  it  is  a  gulf,  the  two 
sides  of  which  have  not  been  created  by  the 
different  workings  of  the  processes  of  evolution 
as  is  the  case  with  the  selfish  and  the  unselfish 
man;  for  evolution  would  never  countenance 
the  survival  of  a  class  of  beings  who  really 
sought    first   the    survival   of  others.     The 
distinction  between  the  enlightened  Egoism 
of  unselfishness  and  this  genuine  Altruii.m, 
is  very  clear.     Unselfishness,  when  Egoistic, 
really  results  in  increasing  the  chances  of  sur- 
vival and  the  prospects  for  happiness  of  the 

38 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

unselfish  man;  but  we  are  talking  here  of  acts 
which  genuinely  decrease  his  chances  of 
survival  and  diminish  his  hopes  for  happiness. 
Such  conduct,  if  persevered  in,  would  lead 
to  the  obliteration  of  his  species.  He  could 
not  be  the  product  of  evolution.  He  could  be 
no  more  than  a  temporary  "freak"  in  the 
progress  of  the  race;  for,  unless  his  decendants 
"  reformed  "  and  became  Egoistic,  they  would 
eventually  die  out. 

But,  granting  for  the  moment  the  possi- 
bility of  such  Altruistic  conduct,  have  we  not 
here  a  wide  dividing  line  ?  It  is  radical — 
deep — not  to  be  bridged.  On  one  bank, 
a  man  acts  so  as  to  preserve  his  own  life  and 
augment  his  own  happiness;  on  the  other 
bank,  he  acts  so  as  to  destroy  his  own  life 
or  decrease  his  own  happiness.  On  the 
Egoistic  bank,  there  is  race  development; 
on  the  Altruistic  bank,  race  suicide.  If  it  be 
a  good  thing  to  increase  the  chances  of  life  and 
happiness  for  humanity,  then  Egoism  is  good 
and  Altruism  is  evil. 

Here  then  is  the  natural  place  for  our  great 
hemispherical   division.    The  only  effective 


i 

I. 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

objection  to  it  is  conveyed  in  the  question  put 
by  some  whether  cuch  Altruism  be  possible. 
Can  a  man  prefer  the  interests  of  others  in  the 
sense  of  actually  decreasing  his  chances  for 
survival  and  happiness  in  order  that  theirs 
may  be  increased  ?    Some  of  the  instances 
of    unwise    Altruism    which    Mr.    Spencer 
describes  would  appear  to  be  cases  of  this  sort. 
The  father  who  works  himself  into  a  physical 
collapse  for  the  benefit  of  his  family;  the 
laborer  who  toils  in  the  sun  until  he  gets 
a  sunstroke  and  so  leaves  his  family  to  the  care 
of  the  community;  the  clerk  who  spoils  his 
eyes  or  gets  "writer's  cramp"  and  so  cannot 
work;  the  public  man  who  shatters  his  health 
and  so  does  not  accomplish  what  he  might; 
such  are  the  instances  he  presents.     But  the 
danger  of  tying  a  principle  up  to  an  example 
is  that  the  reader  may  get  a  mental  picture 
of  the  example — possibly  from  some  similar 
case  which  he  knows— that  is  not  an  appli- 
cation of  the  principle   at  all.     Still  these 
instances  may  be  followed  so  far  as  they 
actually  refer  to  cases  in  which  a  man  deliber- 
ately sacrifices  his  health  and  happiness  in 

40 


'niE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

the  belief  that  he  is  providing  for  the  life  and 
happiness  of  others.  But  if  it  should  be  that 
he  is  only  striving  to  keep  present  and  pressing 
want  from  his  loved  ones,  careless  of  what 
the  future  may  hold  for  any  of  them,  then  his 
collapse  is  not  due  to  Altruism  but  to  the 
strenuous  satisfaction  of  his  greatly  alarmed 
instinct  or  appetite  of  fatherly  care. 

A  better  answer  to  the  question  is  probably 
some  such  simple  statement  as  this — If  a  man 
can  choose  to  act  in  any  given  case  so  as  to 
secure  for  himself  the  greatest  amount  of  life 
and  happiness,  he  can  surely  choose  to  act 
otherwise.  And  as  he  can  so  choose  in  such 
a  way  as  to  decrease  his  life  and  happiness  by 
taking  too  little  account  of  the  profits  and 
pleasures  to  be  got  by  commuaal  co-operation, 
he  can  also  so  choose  as  to  bring  about  this 
decrease  from  the  possible  maximum  by 
overestimating  the  advantages  to  be  got  from 
communal  co-operation.  The  fact  of  the 
matter  is  that  what  we  call  unselfishness  has 
always  been  a  progressively  evolving  virtue. 
The  unselfishness  of  one  age  becomes  the 
selfishness  of  the  next.    Take  as  an  example 

41 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

the  treatment  of  the  family  by  the  father. 
The  barbaric  man  fought  for  his  family  but 
would  not  work  for  it;  and  the  utmost  limit 
of  his  unselfishness  was  to  see  that  it  did  not 
suffer  from  physical  attack.    Next  we  find 
him  providing  it  with  what  might  be  called 
the  raw  materials  of  food  and  clothing;  and  so 
progressively  has  the  father  extended  the 
limits  of  his  exertion  for  the  benefit  of  the 
family   until  the   modern   American   father 
is  depicted  as  sla-  I'ng  all  year  in  his  office 
in  order  that  Ka  t  i.nily  mzy  idle  between 
its  city,  sea-side  and  mountain  homes.     The 
father  who  to-day  would  merely  arrange  for 
police  protection  for  his  household,  would 
suon  be  "wanted"  by  the  police  for  non- 
support. 

And  so  it  is  with  all  social  relations.  The 
credit  basis  of  much  of  our  modern  business 
would  have  been  impossible  not  so  very  long 
ago;  and  the  man  who  would  have  then  given 
credit  to  a  customer  would  have  been  literally 
sacrificing  his  own  interests— i.e.  his  life  and 
happiness— to  the  interests  of  the  customer. 
That  would  have  been— had  he  knowingly 

42 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPPRIALJSM 

done  it—Altruism;  to-day  the  same  act  is 
enlightened  Egoism.     So  we  may  say  that  the 
point  at  which  the  sacrifice  of  one's  life  and  hap- 
piness in  order  that  others  may  gain  life  and 
happiness,  brings  back  the  maximum  return 
of  life  and  happiness  to  us,  is  always  shifting. 
Wider  and  wider  grows  the  domain  of  profit- 
able unselfishness.    It  may  be  that  on  some 
golden  to-morrow  it  will  be  impossible  to 
serve  others  without  securing  a  greater  return 
for  one's  self;  but  in  that  millenium  there  can 
be  no  Altruism,  for  Egoism  will  have  con- 
quered the  entire  realm  of  possible  human 
action.     This    sweet    dream,    however,    can 
never  come  true  so  long  as  opportunities  are 
scarcer  t!:        len;  for  whenever  there  be  two 
men  competing  for  one  opportunity,  it  will 
I'e  Within  the  power  of  one  of  them  to  efface 
himself— perhaps  by  suicide— and  thus  per- 
form an  act  of  Altruism  which  can  bring  no 
Egoistic  return. 

Before  leaving  for  the  present  this  question 
of  the  possibility  of  Altruism,  it  ought,  perhaps, 
to  be  said  in  the  interest  of  clearness  that  this 
volume  treats  of  a  course  of  conduct  which 

43 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

contains,  under  present  circumstances,  a 
display  of  Altruistic  action— viz.  r—the  oppo- 
sition given  to  Imperialism  by  certain  persons 
on  the  ground  that  we  have  no  right  as 
national  communities  to  uecrease  the  chances 
for  life  and  happiness  of  others  in  order  that 
our  chances  may  be  increased. 

It  is  hard  to  escape  the  feeling  that  Mr. 
Spencer  had  a  sub-consciousness  all  through 
his  discussion  of  this  question  that  his  dis- 
tinction between  Egoism  and  Altruism  was 
unscientific,  and  that  there  was  no  real  and 
innate    difference    between    the   two    as    he 
defined  them.    All  through,  he  argues  that 
a  man's  Egoistic  satisfactions  are  increased 
by    his   knowledge    of  the    satisfactions    of 
others.     For  example,  he  says  that  men  live 
together  instead  of  separately  because  they 
"  everally  reap  more  good  than  evil  from 
tiie  union."     In   discussing   tribal   co-oper- 
ation, he  refers  to  "the  ways  in  which  the 
Egoistic    satisfactions    of   each    are    dimin- 
ished by  deficiency  of  that  Altruism  which 
checks  overt  injury  to  others."    Again,  he 
says,    "each    profits    Egoistically   from    the 

44 


i 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

growth  of  an  Altruism  which  leads  each  to 
aid  in  preventing  or  diminishing  others* 
violence."  All  through  this  chapter  on  "Al- 
truism versus  Egoism,"  he  argues  that  the 
practice  of  Altruism  leads  to  Egoistic  satis- 
factions; a  contention  which  is  not  to  be 
distinguished  from  saying  that  so-called 
Altruism  is  nothing  but  enlightened  Egoism. 

This  becomes  more  marked  in  his  final 
chapter  on  "Conciliation."  He  anticipates 
so  great  a  development  of  sympathy  that 
among  the  keenest  of  our  pleasures  will  be 
those  which  come  from  sympathy  with  the 
pleasures  of  others.  A  mother,  indeed,  has 
already  reached  this  stage.  In  that  state, 
we  shall  seek  to  give  others  pleasure  whenever 
the  opportunity  offers— that  is,  "eventually 
sympathetic  pleasures  will  be  spontaneously 
pursued  to  the  fullest  extent  advantageous 
to  each  and  all."    Then  Mr.  Spencer  goes  on- 

"In  natures  thus  constituted,  though  the 
Altruistic  gratifications  must  remain  in  a 
transfigured  sense  Egoistic,  yet  they  will  not 
be  Egoistically  pursued— will  not  be  pursued 
from    Egoistic    motives.    Though    pleasure 

45 


I 


THE  ETHICS   OF  IMPERIALISM 

will  be  gained  by  giving  pleasure,  yet  the 
thought  of  the  sympathetic  pleasure  to  be 
gained  will  not  occupy  consciousness,  but 
only  the  thought  of  the  pleasure  given."  He 
illustrates  his  meaning  here  by  an  analogy: — 
"A  miser  accumulates  money,  not  deliber- 
ately saying  to  himself,  *I  shall  by  doing  this 
get  the  delight  which  possession  gives.'  He 
thinks  only  of  the  money  and  the  means  of 
getting  it,  and  he  experiences  incidentally 
the  pleasure  that  comes  from  possession." 

That  is,  the  Egoism  of  the  miser  consists, 
not  in  pursuing  pleasure,  but  in  pursuing 
money.  But  why  does  he  pursue  money? 
Is  it  not  because  he  takes  pleasure  out  of 
the  possession  of  money  ?  Is  not  money  in 
his  case  merely  an  instrument  of  pleasure  ? 
In  what  does  he  differ  in  this  respect  from 
the  man  who  pursues  money  to  spend  it  on 
fast  horses  ?  In  each  case,  the  money  buys 
pleasure  for  its  possessor,  though  in  the  case 
of  the  miser  it  buys  it  directly  while  in  the 
case  of  the  man  with  the  fast  horses  it  buys 
it  indirectly  through  the  purchase  of  the 
horses.    The  latter  man  might  as  fairly  be 

46 


THE  ETHICS   OF  IMPERIALISM 

said  not  to  be  pursuing  pleasure  but  to  be 
pursuing  horses  only. 

Is  it  possible  to  thus  distinguish  between 
the  pursuit  of  pleasure  and  the  pursuit  of 
things   which    bring   pleasure?    If  a   man 
were  to  set  out  to  pursue  pleasure  pure  and 
simple,  what  would  he  pursue  ?    How  do  we 
get  pleasure  ?    By  the  satisfaction  of  certain 
appetites  or  capacities  for  pleasure  within  us. 
The  satisfaction  of  these  appetites  or  capaci- 
ties is  only  accomplished   by  securing  the 
things  which  satisfy  them.    There  is  no  other 
way.    The  glutton,  to  find  pleasure,  must 
have  food;  and  yet  would  it  not  be  trifling  with 
words  to  say  that  he  is  pursuing  food  and  not 
pleasure  when  he  seeks  out  a  famous  restau- 
rant?   The  musical  man  must  have  music 
in  order  to  feed  his  musical  appetite;  but  does 
he  nqt  seek  pleasure  when  he  goes  to  a  concert  ? 
And  so,'surely,the  man  who  takes  his  pleasure 
in  seeing  the  pleasure  of  others.    He  thinks, 
of  course,  of  the  pleasure  of  the  others  pre- 
cisely as  the  glutton  gloats  over  the  viands  he 
is  to  get  or  the  musical  man  runs  over  the 
concert  programme;  but  the  beckoning  motive 

47 


i 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

in  each  case  is  the  pleasure  it  is  to  give  the^ 
man  himself  when  he  sees  the  others  enjoying 
themselves,  or  eats  his  appetising  dishes,  or 
hears  his  musical  numbers. 

So  may  we  not  imagine  that,  while  Mr. 
Spencer  used  the  terms  of  Egoism  and 
Altruism  in  the  artificial  sense  in  which  he 
did — a  sense  very  close  to  that  of  common 
speech,  though  followed  into  details  with  the 
relentless  courage  of  a  logical  thinker — he 
had  a  consciousness  that  there  was  no  real 
dividing  line  between  them,  though  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  found  the  place  where  the 
natural  boundary  runs.  Yet  even  that  is 
uncertain,'  for  the  acts  which  he  describes  as 
going  too  far  in  the  direction  of  Altruism  and 
hence  being  unwise,  are  really  acts  of  genuine 
Altruism,  which,  as  we  shall  see,  are  always 
immoral. 


48 


V. 
THE  FIGHTING  UNIT. 
Egoism  begins,  of  course,  with  the  self-love 
of  the  individual.    He  wants  to  live,  and  he 
wants  to  be  happy.    I  have  no  intention  of 
going  into  a  discussion  of  the  Egoistic  philoso- 
phy.   There  are  whole  libraries  full  of  such 
discussions.    What  I  am  concerned  to  do  is 
simply  to  state,  as  briefly  as  I  can  without 
a  sacnfice  of  clearness,  the  possibility  that  the 
Egoistic  principle  may  be  found  to  support 
all  proper  phases  and  developments  of  Chris- 
tian ethics,  while  it  accounts  for  the  growth 
of  the  individual's  love  of  life  into  the  nation's 
love  of  power. 

The  individual's  first  business  is  to  live 
A  veiy  superficial  study  of  the  animal  world 
shows  that  there  is  nothing  which  the  indi- 
vidual will  not  do  to  live.  Stealthy  and 
cowardly  murder  is  a  commonplace  of  the 
jungle.  The  pressure  of  circumstances  will 
bnng  cannibalism.    Mothers  will  kill  and  eat 

49 


iHil 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

their  children.    Any  horror  we  can  imagine 
will  be  reproduced  in  the  nearest  thicket  or 
pond.    And  the  same  principle  governs  the 
highest  type  of  modem  society.    The  indi- 
vidual still  knows  no  limit  to  the  things  which 
he  will  do  in  order  to  survive,  except  the 
limits  the  observance  of  which  his  t3rpe  has 
learned  by  long  experience  makes  for  survival 
far  more  effectively  than  the  refusal  to  observe 
them.    For  example,  the  modem  man  has 
ceased  from  certain  forms  of  physical  murder 
and  plunder  for  personal   aggrandisement, 
becai  se  his  life  and  property  are  more  secure 
in   a  community  where  these  methods  of 
strengthening  one's  position  are  not  permitted. 
There  is  a  stage  of  animal  development 
at  which  the  individual  is  the  Fighting  Unit. 
By  Fighting  Unit,  I  mean  the  Unit  which  is 
expected  to  fight  physically  to  live,  whether 
it  be  the  individual,  family,  tribe  or  nation. 
The  Unit  may  fight  on  the  defensive  to 
preserve  life  from  direct  assault;  or  on  the 
aggressive  to  preserve  life  by  sustaining  and 
fortifyirg  it  with  wealth,  whether  food,  or 
materials  which  will   buy  food   and  other 

50 


1    ! 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

products  of  labor,  or  opportunities  to  get  such 
materials.  The  marked  distinction  made  in 
modem  communities  between  defensive  and 
offensive  fighting,  is  never  so  clear  in  the  case 
of  the  Fighting  Unit.  The  Fighting  Unit 
employs  physical  force — as  well  as  mental 
and  all  other  forces — ^to  secure  life  and  happi- 
ness, and  it  matters  little  whether  it  be  to 
fight  defensively  against  a  hungry  enemy  or 
to  fight  aggressively  for  food.  A  Fighting 
Unit  only  ceases  to  be  such  when  it  becomes 
confidingly  imbedded  in  a  co-operating  com- 
munity which  guarantees  it  a  greater  security 
of  life  and  a  surer  hold  upon  happiness  if  it 
will  surrender  to  the  community  the  right 
to  employ  physical  force  for  bettering  its 
condition.  Then  the  community  becomes 
the  Fighting  Unit. 

Thus  early  there  appears  an  extension  of  the 
Fighting  Unit.  Families  which  stand  to- 
gether tend  to  survive  in  competition  with 
the  individuals  composing  families  which  do 
not.  Accidental  co-operation  in  defence 
against  a  much  stronger  common  enemy  may 
have  been  the  first  step  in  united  family 


f 
i 
* 

f 
f 

1 

r:i 


tB 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

fighting;  but  eventually  the  individual  finds 
that,  as  a  rule,  he  will  get  more  to  eat  if  he 
restrains  his  desire  to  make  a  meal  of  his 
brother,  choosing  rather  to  hunt  in  company 
with  him.  Now  this  k  not  Altruism.  This 
is  not  love  of  his  brother.  This  is  the  most 
absolute  Egoism.  His  sole  purpose  is  to  live 
and  be  happy;  and  he  has  merely  learned 
the  elementary  lesson  that  family  co-operation 
will  increase  his  chances  to  life  and  happiness. 
It  is  very  difficult  for  the  human  mind, 
after  untold  centuries  of  discipline  in  brotherly 
love,  to  look  back  through  the  mists  and  see 
the  naked  Egoism  of  the  origin  of  this  love. 
We  cannot  forbear  the  fond  imagining  that 
the  first  animal  to  recognize  kinship  must 
have  been  moved  by  some  trace  of  affection 
brought  to  life  in  its  bosom  by  a  familiar  flirt 
of  the  tail  or  pose  of  the  fin.  But  to  seriously 
incorporate  such  an  idea  in  our  theory  of 
life  is  to  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  that  some- 
thing can  come  out  of  nothing — ^that  an 
effect  may  be  causeless.  So  long  as  your 
individual  animal  knew  nothing  of  the  bene- 
fits of  co-operation,  he  regarded  every  brother 

52 


THE  ETHICS   OP  IMPERIALISM 


in  the  light  of  a  "meal"  or  a  "mealer."  To 
suppose  that  he  suddenly  loved  his  brother, 
and  that  he  learned  to  his  great  surprise 
afterward  that  this,  in  place  of  depriving  him 
of  a  meal,  made  meals  easier  to  get,  is  to  put 
the  initial  date  of  the  age  of  miracles  well 
back.  It  is  practically  certain,  indeed,  that 
co-operation  would  be  at  first  accidental  and 
exceptional;  but  that  the  co-operating  families 
or  groups  survived  in  so  decisive  a  manner 
that  it  became  a  habit  and  then  an  instinct. 

This  enlarged  the  Fighting  Unit.    In  the 
animal  world  we  find  it  enlarged,  in  different 
animals,  to  differing  extents.     But  we  may 
as  well  come  at  once  to  the  consideration 
of  the  human  animal  which  is  the  only  animal 
—so  far  as  I  know— which  endeavors  to  com- 
bine   an   Altruistic    system    of  ethics   with 
Imperialism.     The    history  of  the  human 
race— indistinct  as  it  is  in  its  early  stages- 
shows  this  same  enlargement  of  the  Fighting 
Unit  which  we  have  been  considering  in  the 
animal   worid.     Apparently,    it    was    never 
smaller  than  the  family,  or,  possibly,  the  tribe, 
we  having  inherited  this  much  from  « the  long 

53 


THE  ETHICS   OF  IMPERIALISM 

results  of  time."  But  there  was  a  distinct 
difference  in  the  relations  between  A.  and  B., 
members  of  the  same  tribe,  and  those  between 
A.  and  X.,  members  of  different  tribes. 
A.  and  B.,  meeting  in  the  forest,  co-operated; 
A.  and  X.  probably  fought. 

In  order  to  get  the  matter  clearly  in  our 
minds,  let  us  start  with  the  family  as  the 
Fighting  Unit.    We  have  here  the  play  of  the 
two  forces— brotherly  love  and  hostility  to 
enemies.     Brotherly  love,  as  we  have  seen, 
has  an  Egoistic  origin;  but  in  operation  within 
the  limits  of  the  family,  at  the  stage  when 
the  family  is  the  Fighting  Unit,  it  wears  the 
guise  of  Altruism.    One  brother  will  fight 
for  another,  even  at  times  when  there  does 
not  seem  to  be  any  hope  of  an  .mmediate 
selfish  return  for  him.     He  will  risk  his  very 
life— which  it  is  the  first  purpose  of  Egoism 
to   save— in   defence   of  his   brother's   life. 
And  again  we  are  met  with  the  claim  that, 
though  brotherly  love  may  have  been  bom 
of  Egoism,  this  shows  it  to  have  developed 
into  Altruism. 
Now  if  this   be  Altruism— if  those  who 

54 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 
regard  Altruism  as  a  great  ethical  principle 

example   of  ,ts   operation-it   will   not   be 
necessan^  for  us  to  push  this  argument  any 
farther.     For  what  we  have  in  this  brotherly 
devotion  is  nothing  in  the  world  but  Egoistic 
brotherly  cooperation  hardened  into  a  habit, 
or,  better  still,  woven  into  the  man's  fibre  as 
an  instinct.    How  this  came  about  is  venr 
dear.    In  the  hard  shock  of  fierce  family 
compet-tion-the  family  being  the  Fighting 
Unit-there  was  no  time  left  for  a  careful 
calculation  of  the  advantages  to  be  reaped 
by  eveiy  mdividual  from  standing  by  the 
family  on  each  occasion  when  the  rush  of 
conflict  came.    If  the  special  arguments  for 
and  against  family  cooperation  were  usually 
considered  in  each  case  before  the  family 
wou^d  fight  together,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that 
If  a  family  entered  the  lists  which  went  on  the 
prmciple  that  it  would  always  fight  together, 
without  waiting  to   consider  the   probable 
results  to  mdividuals,  that  family  would  have 
a  tremendous  advantage  in  its  constant  readi- 
ness and  the  promptness  with  which  it  could 

55 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

strike.  Such  families,  making  co-operation 
a  constant  law,  would  tend  very  strongly  to 
survive.  Families  which  doubted  the  wisdom 
of  this  blind  mutual  devotion,  would  be  wiped 
out.  Moreover,  every  aid  which  arose  in 
the  family  breast  to  strengthen  the  certainty 
and  quicken  the  eagerness  of  this  brotherly 
mutual  support,  would  assist  survival,  and 
would  thereby  itself  survive.  Risking  death 
to  save  a  brother's  life,  might  be  balked  at  to 
begin  with;  but  the  families  where  in  it  was 
done,  would — other  things  being  equal — be  in 
the  long  run  the  stronger,  and  would  survive 
the  extinction  of  the  others  which  usually 
declined  the  risk.  And  this  illustrates  again 
the  genesis  and  development  of  brotherly 
love.  It  is  the  product  of  enlightened  self- 
interest,  which  has  come  through  nature's 
cruel  but  instructive  school  of  evolutionary 
competition. 

The  principle  here  is  Egoism — not  Altruism 
at  all.  Happily  human  development  has  gone 
so  far  that  this  statement  can  br  proved  to 
a  demonstration;  and  proved  by  showing  how 
brotherly  love  suffers  cc    xpse  the  moment  it 

56 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERUUSM 

intcrci  rs  to  your  own. 

tn«  family  love  ,s  a  beautiful  example  of 
Altruism  will  develop  as  we  consider  the 

Ob7  f  u'  '■""■"^  "  »  Fighting  Unt 
Obvously  that  histoo-  would  „«  be\  Io,^g 

to  cooperate  w.th  the  same  effect  upon  thrir 

of  the  family  had  upon  that  of  the  individual. 
The  tnbe  would  soon  become  the  Fighting 
Um  ,  and  a  new  loyalty  would  grow  upi 
the  loyalty  to  the  tribe.  Unques.Lably  for 
along  time  ,t  vould  be  much  weaker Ihan 
that  cJder  loyalty  to  the  family.  At  the  fir^ 
hmt  that  any  family  was  being  sacrificed™ 
thegenera  mterests  of  the  tribe,  a  momentary 

would  fight  for  ,ts  own.     The  same  thing 

S7 


THE  ETHICS   OF  IMPERIALISM 

undoubtedly  happened  again  and  again  when 
individuals  were  learning  to  fight  as  families. 
At  the  beginning,  the  advantage  of  co-oper- 
ation to  the  individual  had  to  be  obvious, 
and   immediate,  and  far  in  excess  of  ihe 
possible   sacrifice.    The  willingncst;   to   co- 
operate instinctively  could  onb  have  come 
after  slow  centuries  of  experience.    And  so 
with  the  family  learning  to  trust  the  good 
faith  of  the  t;  be.    At  first,  it  could  hardly 
have  ceased  to  watch  the  other  co-operating 
familic     ^ith  a  half-hostile  eye  until  it  was 
quite  certain  that  its  own  life  was  safe  on  that 
side  at  all  events. 

But  slowly  this  new  tribal  loyalty  became 
dominant.  For  fighting  purposes,  the  family 
was  gradually  absorbed  in  the  tribe.  The 
immediate  result  of  this  was  that,  just  as  the 
individual  had  come  to  instinctively  merge 
his  loyalty  to  himself  in  his  loyalty  to  the 
family,  so  loyalty  to  the  family  became 
absorbed  in  loyalty  to  the  tribe.  Families 
were  now  found  willing  to  die  for  the  tribe — 
or  for  the  nation.  Where  family  loyalty 
attempted   to   take   precedence   over   tribal 

58 


I 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

loyalty,  it  became  a  mischievous  force.  Just 
as  when  the  individual  sought  to  save  his  own 
skin  without  regard  to  what  became  of  the 
family,  he  was  accused  of  cowardi<«:;  so  the 
family  which  desened  the  tribe  or  nation  for 
its  own  betterment,  came  in  for  the  deepest 
condemnation.  And  here  we  see  the  burial 
of  family  loyalty  for  fighting  purposes.  It 
had  thus  run  its  full  course  and  lived  out  its 
usefulness;  and,  as  it  was  bom  because  it 
gave  the  individual  a  better  chance  to  survive, 
so  it  died  in  order  to  strengthen  still  farther 
this  same  chance  of  individual  survival. 

Family  loyalty  or  co-operation  was  at  first 
unknown;  then  a  utilitarian  discovery;  then  a 
tentative  experiment;  then  a  practice;  then  a 
religion;  then  a  bar  to  tribal  unity;  then  a 
weakness  in  tribal  co-operation;  then  tribal 
treason.  Brutus  sacrificing  his  son  to  the 
maintenance  of  a  spirit  of  justice  among  the 
Roman  people,  is  regarded  as  a  noble  figure. 
But  in  the  days  when  the  family  was  the  Fight- 
ing Unit,  he  would  have  been  looked  upon  as 
an  insane  traitor.  Yet  under  the  principle  of 
Altruism,  he  was  always  bound  to  sacrifice  first 

59 


%I 


i     :   tl 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

himself  and  then  his  son,  if  such  a  sacrifice 
would  benefit  thosewhom  it  touched.  The  fact 
is,  however,  that  a  Brutus,  in  the  family  Fight- 
ing Unit  times,  who  would  fail  to  persistently 
support  his  son  against  the  sons  of  all  other 
men,  would  doom  his  family  to  extinction; 
while  a  Brutus,  in  the  Roman  days,  helped 
the  nation  to  survive.  There  lies  the  differ- 
ence. In  one  case,  the  act  would  mean 
destruction  first  of  the  family  and  then,  as 
a  result,  of  the  individual;  in  the  other  case, 
it  meant  survival  first  of  the  nation,  and  then, 
as  a  result,  of  the  average  individual.  Sur- 
vival made  the  difference  between  a  vice  and 
virtue  in  the  same  act;  and  survival  is  the 
first  and  last  word  of  Egoism.  Sacrifice  is 
the  first  and  last  word  of  Altruism;  and  the 
sacrifice  would  have  been  as  great  in  the  one 
case  as  the  other. 

Here,  then,  we  see  family  loyalty  encouraged 
as  a  virtue  so  long  as  it  assists  survival;  and 
we  see  it  cast  aside  as  a  vice  when  it  appears 
as  a  hindrance  to  survival.  That  is,  the 
moment  the  Egoistic  principle  fails  to  justify 
brotherly  love,  brotherly  love  tends  to  dis- 

60 


THE  ETHICS   OF  IMPERIALISM 

appear.  The  voice  of  Altruism  is  utterly 
disregarded.  It  is  not  the  sacrifice  that 
hallows  brother  love;  it  is  hallowed  by  the  net 
benefit  to  the  individual  which  grows  out  of  it. 


6i 


VI. 
THE  FOLLY  OF  ALTRUISM 
Now  have  we  not  here  the  key  of  most  so- 
called  Altruism  ?   Do  not  most  acts  commonly 
called  Altruistic  resemble  family  loyalty  in 
being  the  products  of  the  plans  of  action, 
sentiments,  or  instincts  which  we  have  reached 
through  co-operation  for  Egoistic  purposes? 
It  is  not  necessary  even  that  the  act  itself 
should  help  co-operation.    It  may  be  only 
an  act  giving  gratification  to  an  instinct  in  us 
which   is   usually  co-operative.    Thus  pity 
for  the  sufferings  of  others  is  one  of  the  oldest 
and  strongest  sentiments  or  instincts  which 
have  grown  into  our  mental  fibre.    It  ob- 
viously arose  from  the  fact  that  active  pity  or 
mercy  tended  to  keep  alive  wounded  brothers 
and  so  to  preserve  the  strength  of  the  family 
or  tribe.    It  was,  of  course,  more  efficacious 
usually  as  it  was  prompt  and  uncalculating 
and  so  sometimes  led  to  the  succor  of  sufferers 
whose  survival  actually  reduced  the   chance 

62 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

of  the  nation  or  race  to  survive.  Still,  on  the 
whole,  it  was  better  to  have  it  prompt  and 
occasionally  mistaken  than  tardy  and  always 
right. 

But,  first,  let  us  get  a  closer  look  at  Altruism 
in  its  relations  to  every-day  life.    When  we 
cease  to  talk  of  the  ultimate  appeal  to  force 
and  come  to  consider  the  ordinary  relations  of 
life,  a  man  is  still  supposed  to  care  first  for 
those  of  his  household.     This  is  a  common 
and  familiar  fact;  yet,  standing  alone,  it  con- 
stitutes a  denial  of  the  virtue  of  Altruism 
which  Altruists  would  be  hard  put  to  it  to 
meet.     If  sacafice  of  one's  self  and  one's 
interests  to  the   interests  of  others  is  the 
supreme  virtue,  why  should  it  not  be  a  man's 
duty  to  care  more  for  his  neighbor  than  for 
his  brother— for  the  stranger  than  for  his 
neighbor  ?    "  Otherism  "  must  constantly  lead 
him  away  from  himself  u'^til  the  command 
to  "love  your  enemies"  appears  as  its  legiti- 
mate   climax.      But    the    common    citizen 
need  not  wait  for  an  opportunity  to  apply  it  in 
the  extreme  case  of  loving  his  enemies;  he 
may  apply  it  eveiy  day  by  dividing  his  cash 

63 


THE  ETIUCS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

receipts  with  his  neighbors  and  letting  his 
family  go  bare-footed. 

Altruism  is  as  constantly  denied  in  the 
transactions  of  every  day  life  as  in  the  most 
spirited  programme  of  the  Imperialist.  And 
what  we  call  the  conscience — butwhat  is  really 
the  ripened  judgment — of  mankind  approves 
the  denial  in  the  one  case  as  truly  as  in  the 
other.  We  talk  sentimi^ntally  of  Altruism 
being  a  virtue  because  we  practice  what  we 
take  for  its  principle  so  seldom.  A  beggar 
comes  to  the  door  and  we  give  charity,  and  we 
call  it  Altruism,  and  we  feel  veiy  virtuous; 
but  if  a  thousand  beggars  came  to  the  door 
and  we  emptied  our  house  and  ran  ourselves 
in  debt  in  order  to  supply  them,  everybody — 
including  ourselves— would  call  it  folly  and 
we  should  feel  very  silly. 

But  think  of  an  eternal  moral  principle, 
said  to  emanate  from  the  Deity  and  imposed 
upon  the  human  race  as  a  command,  credited 
with  bearing  up  our  enrire  system  of  ethics; 
and  yet  breaking  down  utterly  under  mere 
frequency  of  practice! 

It  seems  to  me  that  those  who  presume  to 

64 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPEWAUSM 

ten  u.  that  Altruism  is  the  basis  of  Christian 

rom  C3od.  are  m  some  danger,  it  we  accept 
Ae,r  own  theological  system,  of  the  sin  of 
blasphemy.    One   of  the   commonest   and 
mest  ways  of  testing  the  truth  of  a  princ  plf 
« to  follow  « to  Its  ultimate  conclusion.    But 
under  th.s  test  Altruism  breaks  down  eve,^! 
where  after  the  first  few  steps.    We  go  2^ 
let  us  say,  for  work  in  the  slums     We  saSfice 
our  ease,  our  familiar  comforts,  our  inc^^ 
m  order  to  let  a  little  more  light  into  the  dark 
ness  of  poverty.    Bu,  we  find  that  we  are  only 
canymg  a  tallow  dip  i„,o  the  sunless  Jl, 

'hort  of  the  entire  surrender.  Yet  /,he 
Altrumic  principle  be  the  true  prindpfe  no 
W„verm  it  should  have  a  garment  orfm;: 

o^tXr."""'""''""^^  «'*"'-- 

/JtruismI    Watch  two  people  making  a 

b.rgam     Consider  the  common  barter  of 

mercantde  life.     Read  the  first  wiU  0,."!,^ 

2^^  your  eye  m  which  nearness  of  blood 

ahnost  mvanably  secures  the  larger  bequest. 

65 


THE  ETfflGS  OF  BIPERIALISM 

Visit  the  law  courts.  Take  practically  any 
step  in  our  intricate  modem  life.  Would  it 
be  practicable  in  any  of  these  cases  to  consider 
first  the  interests  of  others?  Would  it  be 
even  virtuous — in  the  sense  that  it  would  lead 
to  a  condition  of  things  which  would  secure 
the  best  development  of  the  people  practicing 
it  ?  Would  it  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  stop 
wholesome  competition,  smother  individual 
eflPort,  throw  modem  civilization  out  of  gear, 
and  doom  the  nation  practicing  it  to  defeat 
and  finally  to  extinction  in  the  battle  of  life  ? 

Yet  unselfishness  is  the  sweetest  thing  in 
the  world — as  love  is  the  greatest.  But  it  is 
a  fundamental  mistake  to  think  that  unselfish- 
ness has  necessarily  the  remotest  connection 
with  Altmism.  We  have  already  seen  that 
brotherly  love — ^the  very  flower  of  unselfish- 
ness— ^was  bom  of  Egoism,  flourished  because 
it  helped  individual  survival,  began  to  shrink 
to  narrower  limits  as  soon  as  its  dominance 
in  the  wider  area  neutralized  tribal  and 
national  loyalty  and  so  hindered  individual 
survival,  and  finally  became  in  some  phases 
a  positive  vice  in  the  national  field.    Proper 

66 


TOE  ETHICS  OP  IMPEBULISM 

bro^heriy  love  i.  developed  Egoism.    While 
and   wherever   supported    bv   ,1,.    p     • 
principle,  it  g„,ws  »d";bei. te  !^ 
that  support  is  withdrawnT^J  p^kTit 

dX::r*-""""'«^««'-3:da« 

.   ^7.  «  "~  brotherly  love  typical  of  all 
beneficial  forms  of  unselfishness?    Are  *- 

e«ri:„tft '"  '"T'  """"^  Egoistfc':,:^;^ 

e«oon,  often  condensed  ,0  an  instinct?    L 

which  undoubtedly  saved  m,-  V^' 

brother  and  so  kL  „„  ,K       ^  "  7°""''"' 
f,-..i  "l  P    "P  "*  strength  of  the 

j^Jy.ortnbe,  and  which  was  mo«  dfea We 
m  doing  th,s  when  it  moved  the  merciful  man 
to  act  mstamly,  and  we  have  said  that,  aff^- 
»g  Its  possessor  like  a  strong  appetite  It 

«*e„ng  which  may  come  to  his  knowledge 
w«hout  stopping  to  enquire  whether  or  not  S 
«uffe«r  might  not.  for  racial  reasons,  better 
be  pennitted  ,0  die.    He«,  then.  «;  ^e 

67 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

surely  the  best  possible  exhibition  of  Altruistic 
virtue — a  man  giving  of  his  time  or  substance 
to  relieve  the  suffering  of  another,  when  the 
act,  so  far  from  benefiting  the  man  who  does 
it  either  directly  or  indirectly,  aaually  huns 
him  indirectly  by  lessening  the  chances  of  his 
race  to  survive.  Yet  it  is  perfectly  plain  that 
such  an  act  could  arise  naturally  from  the 
operation  of  the  Egoistic  instinct  to  succor 
a  brother  who  was  temporarily  disabled. 
Here  we  have  an  instinct  turning  on  itself,  as 
it  were — producing  an  act  contrary  to  its  own 
purpose;  and  yet  producing  it  naturally. 

It  is  easy  to  say,  of  course,  that  while  the 
Egoistic  principle  will  explain  mercy,  it  is  not 
the  true  explanation.  The  real  source  of 
mercy,  we  may  be  told,  lies  in  the  duty  of 
personal  sacrifice  for  the  good  of  the  others. 
But  again  we  can  apply  the  test  of  universality. 
A  true  principle  of  ethics  may  be  universally 
applied  without  once  leading  to  a  wrong  act. 
To  hold  otherwise  is  equivalent  to  contending 
that  the  multiplication  table  is  not  always 
applicable.  Truth  is  Mniversal.  Twice  four 
are   always    eight.      If   self-sacrifice  is    an 

68 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPEBIAUSM 

«h.cal  principl»-a„d  no,  a  mere  temporan, 
developmen.   of  another  principle,  T-tf 

Thus  the  ::ui^^::'zz'^' 
».uch.oris.Mi«.„,rpaS,wrdrhr 

or,  worse,  „il|.  depriving  him  of  life     HeTe' 
s  a  beautrfui  opportunity  for  «If.sacrifi": 
that  another  may  benefit;  bu,  a  soldier  who 

:  *j!"r '  "■T"  '"  "*"  »"  "^«  - 

hZlw     »i      ""'^'"'''  "^""domnation  of 
humanity.    Mercy  is  not  always  right     Ther, 
are  tmies  when  it  is  wrons     A„5     u 
sect  #n  CbJ       •      i  """8-    And  when  we 
seek  to  find  a  sign  by  which  we  shaU  know 
these  occasions  upon  which  mercy  is  wronT 

of  possible  self-sacrifice,  bu.  we  dways  apply 

his/'"  °'""^ "'  "'"o""  ---7 

tl,,       u       1^  "^"'"'y  «<•  follow  this  thought 
through  other  examples.     "Slum  worl'^i 

gratification  of  .^^f  forXh-.r^:! 

«9       . 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

tions,  we  have  become  a  people  with  an 
appetite  for  philanthropy  precisely  as  we  are 
a  people  with  an  appetite  for  certian  familiar 
colors  and  sounds.  Propaganda  work  of  all 
kinds  is  a  very  obvious  gratification  of  self; 
for  to  what  man  comes  a  greater  joy  than  that 

of  persuading  others  to  his  opinion  ?  That 
this  passion  has  its  roots  in  the  struggle  for 
self-preservation  is  equally  clear.  The  man 
with  a  good  plan  of  campaign  who  could 
talk  his  tribe  into  it  would  be  more  likely  to 
survive  tiian  one  who  had  as  good  a  plan  but 
lacked  powers  of  persuasion. 

In  fact,  the  folly  of  imagining  that  Altruism 
is  an  ethical  principle  at  all,  is  exposed  by 
simply  attempting  to  follow  it  to  its  ultimate 
conclusion.  Altruism  means  selt-sacrifice  for 
the  benefit  of  others.  An  Altruistic  race, 
then,  would  be  a  race  of  competitors  in  self- 
sacrifice.  No  one  would  be  willing  to  receive 
the  benefits;  everyone  would  strive  to  make 
the  sacrifices.  The  result  of  this  must  be 
a  universal  tendency  toward  suicide,  unless 
we  escape  from  this  pit  by  the  Spencerian 
supposition  that  when  self-sacrifice  had  reached 

70 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

its  climax,  men  would  begin  to  further  lacri- 
fice  themselves  by  accepting  benefits  which 
they  did  not  want  in  order  that  other  men 
might  have  the  greater  joy  of  supplying  them. 
But  the  next  step  from  this  would  be  that 
every  one  would  strive  for  the  supreme 
"sacrifice"  of  accepting  benefits,  which  would 
soon  give  the  wheel  another  whirl  and  set 
every  body  making  sacrifices  in  order  that 
other  people  might  "sacrifice"  themselves  by 
accepting  benefits,  which  they  would  do  that 
other  people  might  make  the  sacrifices  in  the 
first  place.  An  ethical  principle,  truly,  which 
"Alice"  might  have  discovered  in  "Wonder- 
land." 


71 


P 


VII. 
EGOISM   AND   CHRISTIAN   ETHICS. 

Two  corollary  questions  naturally  arise  in 
the  mind  here — 

(i)  Is  Egoism  universally  applicable  ?  Can 
it  be  followed  as  a  principle  in  every  case? 
Or  is  it— like  Altruism— self-destructive  when 
pushed  to  an  extreme  P 

(2)  Will  Egoism  really  save  the  system  of 
ethics  which  we  call  Christian  ? 

Egoism  is  the  principle  of  seeking  first  one's 
own  life  and  happiness.  Civilization  is  but 
the  fuller  enlightenment  and  better  equipment 
of  Egoism.  The  more  civilized  a  people, 
the  more  effective  is  its  Egoism.  From  this 
it  follows  that  nations  relatively  low  in  the 
scale  of  civilization  have  a  relatively  in- 
efficient and  undeveloped  Egoism;  just  as 
peoples  who  had  advanced  no  farther  than 
family  loyalty  would  stand  no  chance  against 
other  peoples  who  had  seen  the  wider  wisdom 
of  tribal  loyalty.     But  the  principle  in  each 

72 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERULISM 
cise  ii  exactly  the  lame.  And  the  farther 
you  push  the  principle-the  more  you  develop 
«  and  apply  it  with  inteHigence-the  better 
are  the  results.  It  is  only  limited  Egoism 
which  defeats  its  own  purpose;  and  this  only 
occurs  when  it  comes  into  competition  with 
a  more  developed  form  of  Egoism. 

Now  with  Altruism,  the  case  is  prcciselv 
contraiy.    Limited  Altruism  seems  to  vvork 
veiy  well;  for  it  is  identical  with  devc.'oped 
Egoism.     But  unlimited  Altruism  is  a  crimi- 
nal folly,  culminating  in  suicide.    Altruism 
forbids  loyalty  at  every  stage  of  its  develop- 
ment; for  whether  it  be  the  individual  or  the 
family  or  the  tribe  or  the  nation  or  the  Empire 
to  which  a  man  is  loyal.  Altruism  always 
points  to  another  individual,  family,  tribe, 
nation  or  Empire  which  it  would  be  highly 
yinuous  to  esteem  above  one's  own.    Altru- 
ism, in  a  word,  is  never  right— that  is,  never 
has  the  approval  of  the  general  judgment— 
when  it  is  truly  Altruistic;  it  only  gains  the 
credit  for  being  right  when  it  is  endorsed  by 
Egoism.      Egoism,  on  the  other    hand,  is 
always  right  except  when  it  is  overmatched 

7Z 


M 


f 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

by  a  more  extreme  and  developed  form  of 

Egoism. 

Now  as  to  the  salvation  of  the  system  of 
Christian  ethics.  We  have  already  seen  that 
brotherhood,  charity,  pity,  and  all  the  teach- 
ings of  ethics  which  are  most  commonly 
regarded  as  "Altruistic,"  are  simply  developed 
Egoism;  and  it  seems  hardly  necessary  to  point 
out  that  the  more  selfish  virtues — such  as 
justice,  honesty,  truth,  fair  play,  self-restraint 
from  passions  which  might  injure  others  as 
well  as  one's  self—are  as  certainly  Egoistic. 
A  man  stands  a  better  chance  of  getting  and 
keeping  wealth  in  a  community  which  is 
honest  than  in  one  which  is  not;  everybody 
benefits  by  justice,  truth,  fair  play  and  mL:  s*  I 
self-restraint. 

Egoism  does  not  at  any  point  overthrow 
modem  ethics;  it  m-rely  provides  a  new 
foundation  for  the  system.  When  teachers 
of  ethics,  misled  by  the  delusion  that  the 
foundation  of  their  system  was  Altruism, 
have  made  false  applications  of  their  prin- 
ciples. Egoism  prunes  them  away.  The 
striking  instance  of  this  with  which  this  whole 

74 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

volume  deals-in  which  Altruism  maladroitly 
brings  brotherhood  and  patriotism  into  con- 
flict— may    serve    as    an    illustration;    but, 
unhappily,   the   mischief  does   not   confine 
Itself  to   striking   examples.    The   miasma 
of  Altruism  permeates  ethical  teaching  with 
regard  to  all  the  details  of  eveiyday  life;  and 
the  result  is  that  the  kingly  rights  of  the 
mdividual,    the    supreme   ethical   value    of 
liberty,  the  fundamental  truth  that  the  State 
has  no  mystic  rights  over  the  individual  which 
have  not  been  delegated  to  it  by  individuals, 
the  doctrine  that  one  man  must  not  interfere 
with  another  man  except  in  legitimate  self- 
defence,  and  all  such  maxims  of  free  and 
untrammelled   individual    development,    are 
obscured  by  this  sentimental  haze  in  which 
much  of  our  later  moral  agitation  is  hopelessly 
befogged.     Many  of  us  have  lost  faith  in 
liberty;  and—to  paraphrase  a  great  saying 
—think  that  the  cure  for  misshapen  evils 
which  flow  from  restricted  liberty,  is— more 
restriction.    A  clear  conception  of  Egoism, 
as  the  true  ethical  basis,  would  disp-1  the  fog; 
and  show  that  to-day,  as  in  all  the  past, 

75 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPEBIALISM 

a  nation  will  always  ri«c  in  pofwer  as  it  tecog- 
nizes  the  right  of  the  in^dual  to  peater 
and  greater  liberty. 


■ 


76 


VIII. 

THE  INDIVIDUAL  AND  THE  FIGHT- 
ING UNIT 
A  group  of  other  questions  here  arise  as 
to  the  extent  to  which  an  individual  surren- 
ders his  right  of  making  sure  of  survival 
to  the  community  which  constitutes  the  Fight- 
ing Unit,  the  time  at  which  he  makes  his 
surrender,  the  relations  of  any  surrendered 
rights  to  similar  rights  he  retains,  and  the 
circumstances  under  which  he  might  resume 
his  surrendered  rights. 

To  begin  with,  it  is  perfecdy  clear  that  the 
individual  surrenders  only  a  small  part  of 
such  rights  to  the  community.  If  another 
man  assaults  him  on  the  public  streets,  he  can 
protect  himself  as  best  he  may  until  the 
community  comes  to  his  assistance,  but  he  is 
expected  tc  leave  all  subsequent  steps  in  the 
matter  to  the  community.  But  if  this  other 
man  puts  his  livelihood  in  danger  by  starting 
a  rival  shop  near  his,  or  by  trying  to  get  his 

77 


Il 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

potiticm  away  from  him  through  superior 
ment,  the  community  seldom  interferes  at  any 
stage.  The  man  must  protect  himself.  We 
are  accustomed  to  look  upon  these  two  forms 
of  aggression  as  entirely  different;  but,  so  far 
as  the  basic  question  of  survival  goes,  they 
are  nearly  identical,  the  permitted  aggression 
being,  if  anything,  the  more  deadly. 

Again,  there  are  certain  forms  of  fraud  with 
respect  so  which  the  community  will  take  up 
the  quarrel  of  the  individual;  but  there  are 
other  forms  of  fraud — say,  those  incident  to 
every-day  retail  trading — in  which  the  indi- 
vidual is  expected  to  defend  himself.  Then 
the  community  will  zealously  guard  everything 
a  man  may  have — ^which  is  an  important 
aid  to  survival — but  it  does  not  pretend  to 
help  him  to  get  anything— which  might  be 
a  far  more  effective  aid. 

Now  what  is  the  real  distinction  between 
these  different  instances?  Why  does  the 
community  do  certain  things  for  the  individual 
while  not  attempting  to  do  certain  other 
things?  These  questions  are  not  answered 
by  saying  that  the  community  merely  proposes 

78 


..t  S'tB^TSmi 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

to  "sec  fair"  between  its  different  members— 
to  keep  order  and  do  justice— an  excellent 
working  rule  which  is  not  always  very  well 
lived  up  to.  The  question  "Why?"  still 
remains  unanswered.  Why  does  the  com- 
munity confine  itself  to  keeping  order  and 
doing  justice? 

Simply  because  this  is  all  it  can  do  for  the 
individual   better  than   the    individual   can 
for  himself.    This  is  the  test,  and  the  only 
test.     People  sometimes  talk  as  if  the  prin- 
ciples laid  down  by  certain  thinkers,  such  as 
liberty  being  a  cure-all  for  social  evils,  and 
the  limitation  of  the  funaions  of  the  state 
mentioned  above,  were  the    arbitrary  dicta 
of  doctrinaires;  when  they  are,  in  reality, 
nothing  but  deductions  from  long  experience. 
There  is  no  arbitrary  moral  commandment 
against  the  state  making  a  I  A'ing  for  the 
individual;  there  is  only  the  crushing  prohibi- 
tive that  the  state  cannot  make  livings  for  its 
individual   members   as   well    as   they   can 
separately  make  livings  for  themselves.     If 
there  is  anything  which  we  can  do  better  as 
a  state  than  we  can  do  as  individuals,  there 

79 


lim 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  do  it  that  way. 
Everything  that  we  do  is  intended  to  aid 
survival  and  happiness.  In  this  respect,  all 
our  acts  are  precisely  alike.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  nature  of  any  one  of  them  which  makes 
it  more  a  state  duty  than  another.  If  the  state 
— that  is,  the  combined  individuals— could 
make  our  livings  better  than  we  can  acting 
separately,  and  if  the  individual  could  defend 
his  property  better  than  the  state  can,  then, 
undoubtedly,  we  would  reverse  the  present 
position  and  the  state  would  keep  store  for  us 
while  we  personally  ran  down  and  adminis- 
tered punishment  to  thieves.  In  fact,  one 
army  of  social  reformers  believe  that  the 
state  can  best  keep  store  for  us,  and  no  one 
will  oppose  the  Socialistic  propaganda  on  the 
ground  that  -i  .:'ontravenes  any  law  imbedded 
in  the  nature  uf  things.  The  one  test  is,  as 
we  have  said :  "  Can  the  state  do  this  better 
than  the  individual";  and  it  is  over  this  ques- 
tion that  the  Socialist  and  the  Individualist 
join  issue. 

The  things  which  to-day  the   individual 
permits  the  state  to  do  for  him  are  the  things 

80 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

which  the  accumulated  experience  of  gene- 
rations has  convinced  him  the  state  can  do 
better   than   he   can.     Slowly,   suspiciously, 
one  by  one,  only  after  the  most  entire  con- 
viction, has  he  surrendered  the  doing  of  these 
things  to  the  state.    When  the  individual 
first  co-operated  with  the  family— the  first 
state— he    retained    all    his    rights    of  self- 
preservation.     If  a  brother  struck  him,  they 
probably  fought   it   out.    From   that  time 
down  to  the  present  day,  we  are  to  conceive 
him  gradually  discovering  new  things  which 
it  would  be  in  the  common  interest  to  permit 
the  state  to  look  after.    So  late  as  Old  Testa- 
ment times,  even  murder  was  punished  by  the 
family  which  had  suffered  from  it.     In  new 
communities  to-day,  a  man  is  expected  to  do 
most  of  his  own  fighting.     In  the  most  civi- 
lized modem  community,  he  is  expected  to  do 
his  own  mental  fighting;  he  is  expected  to 
protect  his  possessions  from  all  the  subtler 
forms   of  theft;   he   is  expected   to   protect 
himself  and  his  property  by  physical  force 
unless   the  community  be    present    in  such 
overwhelming  power  as  to  be  able  to  do  it 

8i 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

much  more  effectively;  he  is, in  short,  expected 
to  look  after  himself  and  fight  his  own  battles 
in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred. 

Now  in  this  lies,  too,  the  answer  to  the 
second  question— When  does  the  individual 
give  up  any  part  of  h  >  primal  right  of  self- 
defence?  He  gives  it  up  when  he  is  fully 
convinced  that  he  will  be  better  defended  at 
that  point  by  giving  it  up.  The  individuals 
who  make  up  the  state  would  never  permit 
the  state  to  undertake  any  tadc  on  their 
behalf  which  they  thought  they  could  do  with 
better  average  results  themselves.  The  indi- 
vidual is  to-day,  in  civilized  communities, 
persuaded  that  he  will  be  better  off  as  a  rule 
if  he  abandons  the  right  to  use  physical  force 
in  promoting  his  self-preservation — except 
in  such  cases  as  it  is  plain  he  would  be  worse 
off,  such  as  when  he  finds  a  burglar  in  his 
house  at  night;  and  in  such  cases  he  still 
retains  the  right  to  use  it.  Now  in  talking 
of  Imperialism,  we  are  talking,  of  course, 
of  the  use  of  physical  force.  The  individual 
may  no  longer  kill  a  man  simply  for  the 
purpose  of  making  his  own  position  better 

82 


ci»:^k^^iF      . 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERULISM 

in  the  world;  but  the  Imperiahsing  nation  may 
kill  thousands  of  men  for  this  veiy  purpose. 
And  the  only  reason  why  the  individual  may 
not  still  kill  men  for  this  purpose  is  because 
he  IS  convmced  that  a  mutual  abandonment 
of  this  right  by  all  the  individuals  in  the 
community  will  greatly  increase  the  chances 
of  all  to  survive.    T!  c  consequence  is  that 
the  mdividual  has  deeded  over  to  the  state 
his  whole  right  to  use  physical  force,  either 
to  advance  his  interests  or  to  protect  them— 
except  in  certain  rare  cases-and  this   has 
been  done  only  after  the  growth  of  a  strong 
general  belief  that  his  interests  will  be  im- 
measurably safer   under  the  shelter  of  state 
protection. 

The  situation  is,  then,  that  the  individual 
defends  himself,  and  fortifies  himself  against 
attack,  and  generally  endeavors  to  survive, 
m  nearly  all  the  relationships  of  life  without 
state  intervention;  but  that  where  communal 
action  has  proven  itself  to  be  much  better 
than    individual    action,    communal    action 
IS  relied  on.     But  there  is  no  difference,  in 
character,  between  the  rights  he  surrenders, 

83 


■Mf^ani. 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

and  the  rights  he  retains.    As  to  the  circum- 
stances under  which  he  might  resume  his 
surrendered  rights,  that  is  not— so  long  as  he 
remains  in  the  community— a  question  for  the 
individual  at  all.    A  community  is,  of  course, 
a  growth;  but,  at  any  given  time,  it  is  practi- 
cally a  society  governed  by  certain  rules. 
An  individual  cannot  insist  upon  staying  in 
the  society  and  breaking  the  rules.    He  must 
either  acquiesce  in  the  rules  or  leave  the 
society.    He  can,  of  course,  agitate  for  a 
change  of  rules;  and  he  will  get  his  change 
when  he  has  arrayed  superior  force  in  its 
favor.    Under  representative  government,  the 
test  of  force  is  usually  the  counting  of  noses; 
but  he  can  always  appeal  from  this  arbitrary 
test  to  the  red  court  of  force  itself. 

The  law  is,  then,  that  the  individual  does 
his  own  fighting  in  every  case  until  a  greater 
power— of  which  he  is  a  part— <akes  it  off  his 
hands  and  more  surely  secures  for  him  what 
he  is  fighting  for.  This  is  true  at  every  point. 
Every  fighting  right  which  has  been  given 
over  to  the  state  has  been  given  over  under 
this  guarantee.     In  every    case  where   the 

84 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

guarantee    does    nof    exist,  the     right    re- 
mains with  the  individual.    Now  when  the 
individual  looks  across  the  national  boundary 
at  another  nation,  whose  growth,  or,  indeed, 
whose    veiy    existence    as    an    independent 
nation  with  laws  of  its  own,  lessens  his  chances 
of  survival,  what  is  his  attitude  ?    To  begin 
with,  he  has  surrendered  to  his  own  nation 
the  right  to  use  physical  force.    Consequently 
he  will  not  cross  the  border  and  commence 
war  upon  any  individual  of  the  other  nation 
himself.     Both    his    nation    and   the   other 
nation  have  agreed  not  to  permit  this;  so 
such  action  would  hardly  help  him  to  survive. 
He  can  do  nothing  except  as  a  part  of  his  own 
nation.    Now  if  he  and  the  other  individuals 
who  make  up  his  nation  believe  that  their 
chances   of  survival   will    be   increased    by 
making  war  upon  that  other  nation— say, 
as  in  the  case  of  Russia  and  Japan  where  both 
felt  that  they  would  be  helped  by  possessing 
Corea— what  are  the  individual's  rights  in 
the  matter?    Why,   all  the  rights  he  ever 
possessed  except  that  of  acting  independently 
of  his  own  nation;  for  he  has  surrendered  none 

85 


I 


'fe;#^?srs-^ 


MKXOCOTY  RBOLUTION  TBT  CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


!■■ 

■  2^ 

■  23 

Lfi 

^^ 

■■■ 

ta 

13. 

■  2.2 

■  16 

!■■ 

■K 
IB 

L& 

12.0 

■■■ 

d    /1PPLIED  IN/MGE    Inc 

16SJ  East  Main  Street 

Roctwstcr,  Near  York        14609       USA 

(716)  482  -  0300  -  Phone 

(716)  288  -  5989  -  Fax 


s 


I 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

of  them  as  yet  to  any  international  community 
which  is  to  get  him  more  surely  what  he  would 
fight  for.  Nationally,  he  and  his  associated 
individuals  are  like  a  lion  in  the  forest; 
whatever  they  are  to  get,  they  must  get  for 
themselves.  The  nation  is  in  the  position 
which  the  individual  would  occupy  if  he  were 
to  be  suddenly  stripped  of  all  state  guarantees. 
Then  it  would  not  be  with  him  a  question  as  to 
whether  he  would  not  be  better  off  under 
the  protection  of  the  state,  but  of  what  he  is 
going  to  do  about  it  when  there  is  no  state 
protection.  Obviously,  he  must  fight  for 
himself;  and,  if  he  is  wise,  he  will  fight  Im- 
perialistically — ^that  is,  endeavor  to  make 
himself  as  strong  as  possible  with  a  view  to 
security  in  the  future. 

But,  some  will  say,  a  nation  will  be  better 
oflF  not  to  fight  with  another  nation.  Then, 
by  all  that  is  reasonable,  it  should  not  fight. 
That  is  exactly  the  point  at  issue.  A  war 
which,  if  won,  will  not  help  the  people  who 
wage  it  much  more  than  it  will  harm  them, 
is  an  insane  war;  and  there  have  been  many 
such.    A  small  class  in  the  community  may 

86 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

get  the  upper  hand  and  force  a  war  upon  the 
nation,  a  war  which  will  strengthen  them  at 
the  expense  of  the  whole  people;  or  insensate 
race  prejudice  may  bring  about  a  mutually 
injurious  war.  These  things  are  to  be 
guarded  against,  the  first  by  an  enlightened 
democracy,  and  the  second  by  the  industrious 
allaying  of  race  feeling  during  the  plastic 
years  of  peace.  But  when  an  occasion  arises 
in  which  war  will  be  productive  of  benefit  to 
a  people,  that  people  can  only  refuse  to  wage 
it  by  foregoing  the  benefit  in  order  that  another 
people  may  gain  or  retain  a  benefit.  This  is 
preferring  first  the  interests  of  another  nation, 
which  will  lead  logically  to  national  suicide. 

Of  course,  war  is  costly.  The  world  loses 
immensely  by  permitting  it.  The  time  will 
come  when  it  will  not  allow  destructive 
fighting  between  nations  over  any  question 
between  them,  any  more  than  a  community 
will  let  two  farmers  bum  each  other's  bams 
because  they  do  not  agree  where  a  fence  ought 
to  run.  But  the  world  can  only  stop  war 
in  the  same  way  that  the  community  does; 
that  is,  by  providing  an  impartial  court  which 

87 


Iri 


I 
pi 


ift 


M 


i  i 


■iir 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

the  nations  will  trust  and  then  supporting  its 
rulings  with  overwhelming  force.  The  single 
fact  that  there  is  no  such  court  between  the 
nations  shows  that  the  nation  is  to-day  the 
Fighting  Unit.  When  the  court  comes,  it  need 
not  be  advertised.  It  will  prove  its  presence 
by  stopping  a  war  or  two.  But  so  long  as  two 
great  nations  can  go  to  war  with  impunity, 
and  the  other  nations  do  nothing  but  wonder 
how  it  is  going  to  affect  them,  it  is  pure  folly  to 
dream  that  international  order  has  been 
established.  The  world  is  to-day  a  mining 
camp.  Certain  kinds  of  outrage  are  "  barred. 
A  certain  chivalry  prevails.  Some  members 
are  under  the  special  protection  of  the  power- 
ful. But  when  the  interests  of  the  powerful 
clash,  the  "gun'*  is  the  sole  arbiter. 


88 


IX. 
THE  NATION  THE  FIGHTING  UNIT 
To-day  the  nation  is-roughly  speaking- 
the  Fighting  Unit.     In  certain  cases,  it  would 
be  more  accurate  to  say  the  Empire;  but 
these  cases  are  practically  exhausted  when  we 
mention  the  British,  the  Russian,  the  Chinese, 
and,  possibly,  the  German  and  the  Austrian. 
In  all  these,  however,  the  Empire  is  either 
an  extension  of  the  nation  or  an  alliance  of 
similar  or  contiguous  principalities. 

It  is  not  very  long,  historically  speaking, 
since  the  nation  became  definitely  the  Fighting 
Unit.    Diimisoing    the    conditions    in    the 
ancient  world  as  being  peculiar  to  themselves, 
we  have  not  to  go  veiy  far  back  in  our  own  era 
to  find  the  nation  lost  in  the  feudal  system. 
There  the  Fighting  Unit  was  the  powerful 
feudal  lord   -d  his  followers;  and  feudal 
loyalty  was  t...  dominant  form  of  patriotism. 
Out  of  this  the  nation  sprang  in  obedience  to 
precisely  the  same  law  as  had  hitherto  called 

89 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

forth  the  family  and  the  tribe;  that  is,  where 
a  race  came  together  and  formed  a  nation, 
they  proved  themselves  to  be  more  powerful, 
and  so  more  likely  to  survive,  than   their 
neighbors  who   remained   divided   btrween 
semi-independent    lor<?     and    cities.      The 
history  of  the  Middle  Ages  is  full  of  repetitions 
of  this  lesson.    The  strength  of  the  German 
peoples  waxed  and  waned  with  the  breadth 
of  the  rule  of  their  Emperor.    Divided  Italy 
was   the   plunder-ground   of  Europe,  while 
united  France  and  united  Spain  were  suc- 
cessively its  most  powerful  masters.     The 
frequency  with  which  England  was  able  to 
exert  an  influence  beyond  what  might  have 
been  naturally  expected,  was  due  in  no  small 
measure  to  the  fact  that  she  early  became 
a  nation  and  never  »-eally  departed  from  that 
condition. 

We  get  here,  in  the  history  of  nation- 
forming,  a  closer  look  at  the  various  forces 
in  operation  which  prompt  and  direct  these 
developments  of  the  smaller  into  the  larger 
Fighting  Units.  There  was  nothing  orderly, 
carefully-thought-out  or  pre-arranged  about  it. 

90 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

It  wasnot  that  arace  came  together  inconven- 
vention,    discussed   the   matter,   and,    after 
concluding  that  they  would  stand  a  better 
chance  as  a  nation,  passed  a  resolution  to  that 
effect.    That  touching  trust  in  the  efficacy 
of  conventions  and  resolutions  is  a  purely 
modem  fancy.    Evolution  does  not  proceed 
m  that  way.    We  might  as  well  imagine  that 
a  reptile  came  to  the  conclusion  one  day  that 
he  would  like  a  pair  of  wings,  and  that  he  and 
his  children  wished  for  wings  until  they  began 
to  grow. 

The  true  histoiy  of  nation-forming  shows 
the  entire  community  struggling  along  as  best 
It  can,   each   member   of   it   intent    upon 
bettenng  his  condition  and  so  strengthening 
his  chances  of  survival,  until,  for  a  variety 
of  reasons,  real  suzerainty  gets  into  the  hands 
of  the  King,  and  it  is  found  that  it  not  only 
makes  the  King  stronger  but  increases  the 
likelihood  of  victory  by  the  knights  composing 
the   nation   over  the   disunited   knights   of 
another   countiy.    But   the   nation    is   not 
certain   to   last   even   after   this   discovery. 
Individurl  knights  may  imagine  that  they 

91 


1^ 

r 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

woulv.  be  betterofFpersonally  if  they  overthrew 
the  reigning  King;  and  they  immediately 
try  it.  Undisguised  personal  Egoism  is  the 
naked  principle  of  the  time.  A  feudal  lord 
will  rebel  against  his  suzerain  every  time 
he  thinks  such  a  step  is  likely  to  be  to  his 
advantage. 

These  rebellions  might  he  prevented  and 
the  nation  solidified  in  many  ways.  But  the 
most  common  and  effective  was  the  growing 
up  of  a  powerful  common  people  who  had 
nothing  to  gain  and  much  to  lose  by  civil  war, 
and  who  feared  the  exactions  of  the  local 
lords  more  than  the  taxes  of  the  King.  These 
men  constituted  the  real  foundation  of  the 
nation.  Out  of  their  plain  self-interest  grew 
the  passion  of  national  patriotism.  Out  of 
their  love  of  peace  and  financial  security  and 
business  opportunity,  came  that  elevation  in 
the  popular  mind  of  the  person  and  will  of 
the  King  so  far  above  those  of  all  other  mortals. 
Undoubtedly  the  King  and  his  representatives 
encouraged  this  belief.  He  was  looking  for 
power — ^which  is  but  another  word  for  stored- 
up  self-preservation — as  eagely  as  any  one. 

92 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

IBut  the  seed  of  patriotic  teaching  would  never 
have  germinated  in  the  breasts  of  the  people 
If  It  had  not  fallen  there  upon  a  rich  soil 
of  immediate  self-interest.     In  our  day,  when 
the  common  people  have  grown  so  strong  that 
they  no  longer  need  the  protection  of  the  King 
agamst  the  nobles,  and  when  the  rising  of 
democratic  equality  against  class  privilege 
has  in  many  concrete  cases  put  the  monarchy 
and  the  nobility  on  trial  together,  it  is  difficult 
to  realize  that  the  monarch  was  once  the  great 
champion  of  popular  rights— the  real  "pro- 
tector of  his  people;"  ytt  that  is  the  message 
ot  histoiy.     Even  in  our  own  day  we  possibly 
see  a  survival  of  this  feeling  in  the  attitude 
of  the  British  Radicals,  who  would  "mend 
or  end     the  House  of  Lords  but  have  not 
a  syllable  to  say  against  the  King. 

Ihus  we  see  that  the  nation  was  the  product 
of  vanous  streams  of  self-interest  which  had 
found,  qu«e  without  planning,  the  road  of  sure 
survival^  Eve^  person,  from  King  to  peasant, 
was  fightmg  for  his  own  hand;  but  certain 
combmations  proved  to  be  stronger  than  other 
combmations  or  divisions,  and  they  survived. 

93 


M 
■'If 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

The  self-interest  which  led  the  nobhs  to  rob 
each  other  and  dispute  the  authority  of  the 
King,  gave  way  befi  re  the  greater  self- 
interest  of  their  protection  against  foreign 
nations  which  required  them  to  stand  together 
and  support  the  King.  A  conquest  by 
foreigners,  who  would  drain  their  lands  and 
destn  their  communities,  was  more  to  be 
dreaded  than  a  chance  to  plunder  a  neighbor 
occasionally  was  to  be  v  asired;  and  if  any 
of  them  had  a  doubt  on  this  point,  the  self- 
interest  of  the  King  who  wanted  to  reign 
securely  and  powerfully,  and  the  self-interest 
of  the  people  who  wanted  internal  peace,, 
very  effectively  beat  down  their  objections. 

When  we  say  that  the  nation  is  the  Fighting 
Unit  to-day,  that  does  not  mean  that  it  always 
will  be,  anymore  than  that  it  always  has  been. 
The  extension  of  the  fighting  Unit  to  such 
a  collection  of  widely  scattered  free  com- 
munities as  those  which  constitute  the  BritisK 
Empire,  is  an  advance  to  a  new  position. 
There  was  a  day — not  so  very  far  distant — 
when  colonies  were  subject  to  the  colonizing, 
country,  and  were  often  held  by  force  of  arms> 

94 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

But  we  have  now  four  praaic^lly  independent 
n,t..n.  m  hearty  alliance  un<',r  ,he  British 
"g.    The  formation  ofihe  German  Empire 
hough  late  in  hi«ory,  i,  harily  «,  remarkaWe 

moirr"  °^'"^'""«!  <•"  «  "  '"lly  nothing 
more  than  France.  Spain,  the  British  hie! 

lZ,l'f  """"'"""-^"ooi^.  accomplished 
ong  before  But  the  raffroeh,„„,  b^een 
the  Bnt«h  and  American  peoples  is  an 
•ncourag.„g  indicaeU  of  L  'possilu^ 
of  an  even  longer  stride  fo,ward.  This  is  n« 
-let  It  be  marked-an  alliance  of  two  Govern- 
me„«  so  much  as  the  clarifying  of  the  vision 
of  two  peoples  which  enables  them  to  see  that 

hev    r'u   """^  """«»  "  """-"on  tha 
they  should  come  near  enough  together  to 

•Jnit.    War  between  them  is  now  practically 

unpo.s.ble-using  the  word  "impoUle"  ^ 

the  hn,„ed  s«.se  „  which  we  would  say  that 

the  dm,,on  of  the  German  Empim  is  „ow 

.mposs,ble";-and,  at  many  Lnt,.  „;" 

agamst  a  foreign  nation  would  be  under.aken 

«og«h.r.    Neither  would  pe^m,t  the  oTh« 

to  be  crushed.    Thus  far  they  have  trL^di;: 

95 


m 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

the  outline  of  a  new  and  larger  Fighting 
Unit. 

When  we  look  to  the  future  we  can  have  no 
doubt  except  as  to  probable  dates.  As 
Britain  and  the  United  States  have  come  to 
see  that  war  between  them  is  contrary  to  the 
self-interest  of  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
both  peoples,  and  have  forbidden  it,  so  before 
long  all  the  peoples  whom  we  now  include 
under  the  loose  term  of  European  civilization 
will  no  more  permit  war  to  break  out  between 
them  than  an  orderly  city  will  permit  brawling 
and  rioting  in  the  streets.  The  merchant 
with  his  brave  show  of  plate  glass  is  not 
opposed  to  stone-throwing  in  front  of  it  simply 
from  an  Altruistic  fear  that  some  of  the  poor 
fellows  whc  are  doing  the  throwing  will  prt 
hurt;  but  he  fears  for  his  glass,  and  he  ^  •es 
not  want  customers  kept  away  fron .  the  store 
by  reason  of  a  dread  of  injury  in  the  streets. 
Civilization  is  now  a  street  of  merchants. 
War  between  nations  no  longer  means  that 
the  merchants  under  one  flag  will  steal  the 
property  of  merchants  under  the  other. 
Consequently  merchants  have  everything  to 

96 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

lose  and  nothing  to  gain  by  w,-,.    Their  ships 
arc  taken;  the  highways  of  the  world  are  made 
unsafe;  the  purchasing  power  of  their  cus- 
tomers ,s  decreased;  their  plate  glass  is  apt 
to  get  broken.    Just  so  soon  as  fhcy  can 
overcome  the  various  influences  tl^at  make 
for  war-race  rival^r,  dynastic  and  aristo- 
cratic ambition,  and  the  belief  of  many  of 
their  own  number  that       small  exclusive 
market  is  better  than  free  access  to  all  the 
markets  of  the  «rorld-they  will  stop  war. 

Of  course,  there  will  be  police  operations 
as  there  are  m   the  quietest  city.       hese 
operations  will  naturally  take  place  m  the 
darker  comers  of  the  globe-in  the  world's 
•^ims.    But  there  --ill  not  be  many  of  them- 
for  most  of  the  little  wars  with  savage  tribeJ 
are  to-day  not  police  operations  at  all.  but 
movements  on  the  great  chess  board  of  inter- 
national   nvalry.    When    civilization    itself, 
and  not , he  single  civilized  nation,  has  become 
the  Fightmg  Unit,  peace  will  pretty  well  have 
come-not  by  disarming  thepassionate  friends 

ir^^'V!^"'^  '^^"*^'  ''«  ^y  ^«eping 
commanding  force  in  the  hands  of  the  mer- 

97 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

chant  peoples  whose  clamorous  self-interest 
daily  demands  peace.  Peace  is  only  to  be 
defended  by  the  weapons  of  war.  The 
moment  peace  lays  aside  its  rifle,  barbarism 
will  reach  for  its  bow  and  arrows. 

When  ?    When  will  the  nations  of  civili- 
lization    come   together?    Precisely    at   the 
same  time  when  the  families  came  together 
to  form  the  tribe-that  is,  when  they  feel 
that  their  individual  safety  is  assured.    We 
cannot  fix  the  date  now— the  date  will  never 
be  fixed.    It  will  be  the  slow  growth  of  mutual 
trust  in  each  other's  good  faith-and  good 
sense.    It  will  be  a  long  series  of  tentative 
advances,  false  alarms,  resentful  retirements 
to  the  old  positions,  venturings  forth  again 
into  nearer  proximity,  always  accompanied 
by  an  increasing  confidence  in  the  genuineness 
of  a  neighbor's  conversion  to  the  obvious 
mutual  advantage  to  be  reaped  from  peace. 


98 


X. 

IMPERIALISM 
But,  whatever  the  future  may  contain,  the 
I-ighting   Unit   is   to-day  the   nation.     The 
employment  of  force   for  self-preservation, 
which--as  we  have  seen-has  been  gradually 
widenmg  away  from  the  individual  in  an  ever- 
enlargmg  circle,  is  now  no  nearer  to  him  than 
the  national  boundaiy.     Inside  of  that  boun- 
daty  when  certain  of  his  rights  are  assailed 
he  appeals  to  the  community  for  protection, 
having  abrogated  in  these  respects  his  natural 
right  to  protect  himself  in  the  mutual  interest 
of  civil  peace.     But  when  the  nation  itself 
IS  attacked,  there  is  as  yet-in  most  cases- 
no  community  to  which  it  can  appeal.     It 
must  protect  itself.    And  it  can  never  be  in 
a     better     position     until    overwhelmingly 
supenor  force  is  pledged  to  protect  its  rights. 
Those  who  fancy  that  there  is  any  protection 
for  any  person  or  thing,  except  the  protection 
of  brute  force,  are  deceiving  themselves  with 

99 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

roseate  fancies.  The  veiy  Peace  Society 
holds  its  sessions  in  security  because  the  force 
of  the  community  is  arrayed  to  protect  the 
right  of  free  assembly. 

Now  the  place  of  Imperialism  in  the  play 
of  the  world's  forces  becomes  apparent. 
It  is  a  fore-handed  phase  of  national  self- 
protection.  It  is,  in  other  words,  a  policy 
of  national  self-preservation  which  does  not 
wait  for  the  flood  to  come  before  it  begins  to 
build  the  ark.  It  is  a  nation  making  sure,  and 
doubly  sure,  if  possible,  of  its  life. 

In  business,  every  wise  man  is  an  Imperial- 
ist.    He  does  not  stop  working  when  his 
next  meal  is  assured  him.     He  does  not  wait 
for  starvation,  or  even  discomfort,  to  knock 
at  his  door  before  he  prepares  to  repel  it. 
If  he  does,  we  call  him  shiftless  and  impru- 
dent; and,  other  things  being  equal,  he  fails 
to  survive.    Independence  is  the  goal  toward 
which  every  real  man  is  struggling.     He  seeks 
to  surround  himself  with  financial  bastions 
and  out-works  and  "spheres  of  influence" 
and  invincible  squadrons,  until  no  foe  that  he 
can  think  of  can   possibly  hope  to  pierce 

100 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPEKIALKM 

through  >nd  aab  him  in  his  uttermost  old  a« 
And  even  then  mos.  men  are  no.  content. 
They  go  on  pihng  up  wealth  and  influence 
and  power  far  beyond  the  apparent  needs 
of  themseves  o,  their  families.    Sometimes 
th^s  IS  justified  by  the  menace  of  other  st^ng 
men  agamst  the.r  interests;  and  sometimes  if 
«  merely  an  evidence  that  what  was  at  firs,  an 
unwekome  necessity,  became  a  habi.,  and 
hen  an  ms.,nct,  and  then  an  appetite.    The 
Imperialism  of  the  business  man  far  exceeds 
the  most  rampant  Imperialism  of  the  greatest 
jmgo    nation  of  modem  times 

c.^^r't  ["■P^""'""  l>«.  indeed,  in  no 
case  of  whKh  one  can  think,  far  outstripped 
^J7  obvious  needs  of  the  nation  which 
n^        I  "•      England,  for  instance,  is  a 
nation  of  traders,  to  whom  markets  are  a  vital 
necessity.    Strip  her  of  India,  forbid  her  to 
hope  for  anything  in  the  Africa  of  the  future, 
close  the  door  on  her  in  China,  take  awa; 
her  colonies;  and  what  would  she  become? 
Probably  a  sea>nd  HoUand.    Her  industries 
would  close  and  her  workmen  would  be  given 
a  choice  between  starvation  and  emigration  to 

loi 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

a  land  which  secured  more  scope  for  the 
activities  of  its  people.  What  man  who,  in  his 
private  businers  found  himself  in  a  position 
comparable  to  that  of  England,  would  be 

less  Imperialistic  ?  ,.1 

The  Imperialism  of  Russia  is  more  mediaeval 
because  her  form  of  government  is  mediaeval. 
When  we  say  "Russia,"  we  mean  not  the 
entire  Russian  people  but  a  Russian  oligarchy; 
and  it  is  patently  to  the  interests  of  this 
oligarchy  to  extend  Russian  rule  as  far  as  it 
can.    Still  we  may  as  well  point  out  in  passing 
that  the  ambition  of  Russia  to  get  ice-free 
ports  on  the  Bosphorus  and  the  Yellow  Sea, 
is  an  exceedingly  English  sort  of  trade  Im- 
perialism. 

Then  the  rise  of  the  Impenalistic  spirit  m 
the  United  States  was  synchronous  with  her 
need  for  outside  markets.  Strictly  speakmg, 
the  Americans  have  always  been  Imperialistic. 
The  Louisianapurchasewas  pure  Impenalism 
though  it  did  not  call  for  any  fighting.  But 
who  doubts  that  the  fighting  would  have 
occurred  had  the  need  existed  ?  The  Civil 
War  was  a  display  of  Northern  Impenalism; 

102 


Siii 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

for  it  was  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the 
determination  of  the  North  that  its  existence 
and  prosperity  as  a  free,  peaceful  and  indus- 
trial  nation  should  not  be  menaced  by  the 
creation  of  a  rival  Republic  south  of  the  line 
But  as  long  as  American  Imperialism  was 
confined  to  the  North  American  conrinent- 
which  was  just  as  long  as  the  growing  require- 
ment  of  the  American  people  for  more  room 
and  wider  markets  could  be  satisfied  on  that 
Continent-we  did  not  call  it  Imperialism. 
Now  however,  that  the  American  merchant 
people  find  it  possible  and  profitable  to  reach 
out  after  the  opening  market  of  Asia,  they 
begm  to  show  some  of  the  more  familiar 
traits  of  Imperialism;  and  some  who  have 
grown  old  under  the  delusion  that  this  spirit 
.was  something  quite  difl=erent  so  long  as  it 
remamed  cooped  up  between  the  Canadian 
border,  the  Mexican  Gulf  and  the  two  oceans, 
are  now  mightily  alarmed  at  the  "new  mani- 
festation,"   It  is  about  as  new  as  the  primor- 
dial slime. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten,  in  considering 
Imperialism,  that  we  are  dealing  with  the 

103 


i    m 


f 


Mil 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

Fighting  Unit,  in  connection  with  which,  wc 
saw  in  a  former  chapter,  there  is  little  dis- 
tinction   between    defensive    and    offensive 
fighting.      "The  Fighting  Unit,"  we  said, 
"employs  physical  force— as  well  as  mental 
and  all  other  forces— to  secure  life  and  happi- 
ness, and  it  matters  little  whether  it  be  to 
fight  defensively   against   a   hungiy  enemy 
or  to  fight  aggressively  for  food.'*    It  will  not 
do  then  to  think  of  the  Imperialising  nation 
as  fighting  only  when  its  interests  are  attacked. 
It  will  fight  just  as  readily  when,  by  attacking 
another  nation,  it  can  serve  its  own  interests. 
I'his  diflPerence  between  defensive  and  offen- 
sive fighting,  of  which  we  make  so  much,  is  an 
artificial  distinction  set  up  by  civilization. 
In  our  eflFort  to  limit  the  number  of  occasions 
upon   which    an    individual    may    lawfully 
"break  the  peace,"  we  have  ingeniously  shut 
out  one  whole  diss  of  occasions  by  sayir^ 
that,  of  course,  he  may  not  do  so  unless 
provoked  or  attacked.    That  is,  he  cannot 
himself  initiate  a  breach  of  the  peace.    This, 
at  a  blow,  cuts  in  half  the  danger  of  physical 
conflict  within  the  limits  of  the  state,  which 

104 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

abundantly  justifies  the  artificial  distinction. 
And  there  is  this  much  nature  in  it— that  a 
man  can  more  easily  restrain  himself  from 
u-mg  physical  force  when  only  urged  thereto 
by  greed  than  when  incited  by  the  pain  and 
fear  produced  by  a  physical  attack  upon  his 
person. 

But  the  wild  animal,  when  it  was  a  Fighting 
Unit,  knew  no  such  distinction.  It  fought 
as  readily  to  obtain  food  as  to  defend  it  It 
merely  employed  physical  force  in  order  to 
make  as  sure  as  possible  of  life  and  happiness 
and  ,t  cared  nothing  whether  it  or  another 
opened  the  hostilities.  Indeed,  it  was  likely 
to  prefer  the  advantage  of  the  "first  blow  " 

The  pure  artificiality  of  this  distinction 
appears  again  when  we  consider  the  employ- 
ment agamst  each  other  by  individuals  of  all 
other  kmds  of  force  except  the  physical.    Two 
rival  grocers,  who  would  not  think  of  throwing 
stones  through  each  other's  windows,  employ 
ail  the  mental  force  they  possess  to  conquer 
the     empire"  of  custom  or  trade  for  which 
they  are  both  competing.    They  study  the 
desires  and  the  whims  of  their  customers; 

105 


i; 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

they  display  their  goods  attractively;  they 
invest  in  striking  delivery  vans;  they  even  send 
out  canvassers.  And  there  is  never  p  thought 
that  one  grocer  shall  not  strike  along  a  par- 
ticular line  until  he  has  first  been  attacked 
at  that  point  by  his  competitor.  His  virtue 
is  rather  to  strike  first.  The  man  who  would 
only  fallow  the  lead  of  hi  »ival  would  be 
judged  to  be  without  enterprise  or  initiative. 

So  in  the  whole  business  world,  mental 
force  is  used  to  the  topmost  power  of  each 
man  to  "conquer**  his  competitors;  and  it  is 
the  offensive  fighter  who  gets  the  praise  and 
the  victory.  The  only  occasions  upon  which 
offensive  fighting  of  this  character  is  thought 
to  be  mistaken  is  when  it  stirs  up  a  powerful 
enemy  who  might  otherwise  have  been 
quiescent. 

Now  the  nation  is  the  Fighting  Unit,  and  so 
employs  physical  force  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  business  man  employs  mental  force. 
It  endeavors  to  make  sure  of  its  survival 
by  the  use  of  its  physical  strength;  and  it  has 
no  more  scruple  about  attacking  an  inoffen- 
sive nation  than  a  grocer  has  of  taking  a  cus- 

io6 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPEKIALISM 

tomer  from  another  grocer  who  may  never 
have   taken   one   from    him.    The   United 
States  wanted  the  Philippines,  and  it  took 
them.    There  are  a  number  of  more  indirect 
and  pleasmg  ways  of  stating  this;  but  they 
are  only  more  pleasing  because  of  this  arti- 
ficial distmction  in  our  minds  between  offen- 
sive  and  defensive  fighting.    We  think  that 
If  we  can  show  that  we  were  in  some  way 
attacked  or  provoked  before  putting  fonh 
our  rtrength,  then  the  employment  of  physical 
force  becomes  thereby  justified.    Thus  the 
American  Imperialist  would  relate  how  the 
ternble  state  of  affairs  in  Cuba  constituted 

n?I^D?r  "P°"  ^'"'*  ""^  '^^'  '^^  taking 
of  the  Phihppmes  was  but  an  act  of  war  in 

the  ensmng  conflict  with  Spain.  But  he  would 
find  It  a  more  difficult  task  to  show  how  the 
i^Uipinos  were  the  aggressors  and  so  justified 
his  assault  upon  their  independence.  The 
truth  IS,  however,  that  the  American  nation 
Jelt  the  need-commercially-of  the  Phil- 
ippmes  precisely  as  Britain  has  long  felt 
the  need,  commercially,  of  India;  and  when 
the  fortunes  of  war  made  it  possible  for  her  to 

107 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

leize  the  islands  without  the  risk  of  embroiling 
any  of  the  other  stronger  powers,  she  seized 
them.  The  Spanish  wnr  did  not  play  the  part 
of  a  provocation,  but  it  brought  about  an 
international  situation  which  made  the  seizure 
of  the  islands  a  safe  proceeding. 

The  first  step  toward  the  e»a  of  univer- 
sal peace  will  very  probably  be  the  abandon- 
ment of  this  right  to  seek  national  benefit 
by  aggression.    Tlie  fact  that  Impcrialising 
nations  are  now  so  eager  to  make  it  appear 
that  they  have  been  indirectly  attacked  before 
they  think  of  going  forth  to  annex  or  assimi- 
late or  control  some  weaker  nation,  shows  that 
public  opii.-Dn  is  already  very  largely,  if  veiy 
loosely,  igainst  aggressive  Imperialism.  This 
is,  of  course,  almost  wholly  an  unconscious 
extension  of  domestic  ethics  to  the  wider 
field  of  international  rivalry;  and  it  docs  not 
really   stand  in  the  way  of  an   aggressive 
nation  when  the  interests  of  aggression  are 
plain.    Still  it  is  a  force  not  to  be  despised; 
for  there  is  probably  no  better  way  of  teaching 
the  people  the  advantages  of  international 
peace  than  to  invite  them  to  consider  the  ad- 

io8 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

vantaget  which  civil  peace  hat  brought  them. 
We  are  a  long  way  yet,  however,  from  any 
real  abandonment  of  this  right  of  -ggrewive 
war. 

It  can  only  come  in  the  international  arena 
in  the  sam^  way  that  it  came  in  the  domestic 
or  civil  field.     No  individual  has  ever  given 
up  his  right  to  use  physical  force  aggressively 
for  his  own  benefit  unless  it  was  literally  pur- 
chased from   him   by  superior  advantages. 
We  in  a  modem  state  cheerfully  forego  any 
such  right,  because  we  are  convinced  that 
the  mutua'  agreement  not  to  aggress  physi- 
cally produces  a  condition  of  things  from 
which  we  get  far  greater  advantages  than 
we  could  possibly  hope  to  secure  by  fighting 
for  them.     In  a  word,  we  have  given  up 
physical  aggression  because  we  have  fo  md 
that  it  pays  to   do  so.     Civil  peace,   like 
honesty,  is  the  best  policy. 

In  the  same  way  will  international  peace 
come,  and  the  first  step  toward  it  will  probably 
be  a  world-wide  agreement  not  to  aggress, 
the  other  nations  being  the  judges  whether  any 
specific  "military  operations"  are  aggressive 

109 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMFERIALISBi 

or  not.  An  optimist  might  think  that  we 
were  veiy  near  this  agreement  now;  but 
a  Thibetan  or  a  C>rean  or  a  Filipino  or 
a  Moor  or  almost  any  native  of  Afr'  might 
have  a  different  opinion.  v\ncl  certainly  until 
security  from  aggression  is  absolute  and 
..niversal,  the  right  to  aggress  will  ne'er  be 
ab>«ndoned.  The  conditions,  as  I  write,  look 
more  like  increasing  than  decreasing  the 
amount  of  national  aggression.  For  centuries 
China  has  been  practically  on  a  peace  basis. 
She  did  not  aggress,  and  only  asked  to  be  let 
alone.  But  the  world  has  not  let  her  alone. 
And  it  may  easily  be  that  the  attacks  of 
Europe  and  America,  and  the  inspiring  ex- 
ample of  Japan,  will  persuade  her  that,  in  this 
Christian  era,  peace  is  not  the  best  policy — 
whatever  it  may  have  been  under  Confucius 
— and  that  she  had  better  become  one  of 
\.ht  aggressive  nations.  Should  this  h..<.ppen, 
the  pleasant  prophets  of  peace  may  as  well 
make  a  new  almanac. 

The  point,  however,  that  I  am  at  pains  to 
make  plain  now  is  that  Imperialism  is 
not  wholly  defensive.      It  is  prej^ervative. 

no 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

National  pretervation   rather  than  national 
defence,  ii  iti  object.    Some  of  the  great 
powen  of  the  world  tell  ui  that  they  want 
no   more   territory— that   they   only   desire 
to  defend  what  they  havej  and  then  they  very 
•hrewdly  accompany  this  statement  with  an 
explanation  upon  which  they  depend  to  carry 
conviction   to  our  minds— viz.  ;—that  they 
already  have  as  much  territory  as  they  can 
profitably  control.    In  the  same  way  and  for 
the  same  reason,  every  prudent  business  man 
limits  the  scope  of  his  operations.    But  even 
with  these  satisfied  nations,  defence  of  what 
they  have  sometimes  implies  taking  more 
territory  in  order  to  make  sure  of  the  ap- 
proaches.   Thus  a  Bridsh  expedirion  must 
go  into  Thibet  in  order  to  protect  the  glacis 
of  the  fortress  of  India  on  that  side. 

Still,  even  though  r^me  nations  may  have 
enough  territory,  others  have  not.  Germany, 
for  instance,  only  lacks  a  powerful  fleet  to  go 
in  for  colonizing  on  a  vast  scale.  The  peoples 
of  central  Europe  generally  show  by  their 
readiness  to  emigrate  that  they  feel  the  pres- 
sure of  over-crowding  very  keenly;  and  it  is 

III 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

likely  that  only  opportunity  is  wanting  for 
a  general  movement  by  the  mercantile  classes 
who  would  like  new  markets,  and  the  agri- 
cultural classes  who  would  like  new  fields, 
toward  a  policy  of  Imperial  extension.  Italy, 
burdened  as  it  is  financially,  made  a  disastrous 
venture  in  East  Africa;  and  France,  loth  as  her 
people  are  to  leave  their  native  land,  is  always 
on  the  outlook  for  her  share  of  the  Continent 
to  the  South.  China  is  the  gravest  example 
of  over-crowding  in  the  worid;  and  if  she 
becomes  Imperialistic,  we  may  have  to  con- 
struct some  new  Atlases. 

Thus  we  may  regard  all  nations  as  being 
actually  or  potentially  Imperialistic.  Some 
are  not  aggressively  so — as,  for  example* 
Holland— because  they  no  longer  have  the 
power;  while  others— like  the  Turk— are 
quiet  through  the  decay  of  the  ancient  spirit. 
But  every  nation  lives  in  an  Imperialistic 
worid;  and  if  it  does  not  strain  every  nerve  to 
strengthen  itself  and  thus  make  sure  of  its 
future  preservation,  it  may  be  very  certam 
that  other  nations  will  become  relatively  more 
powerful.   What  this  means  for  the  somnolent 

112 


I 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

or  the  self-restrained  nation,  history^  teaches. 
For  he  that  hath,  to  him  shall  be  given: 
and  he  that  hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken 
even  that  which  he  hath."    Spain  still  bleed- 
ing for  her  colonies,  Turkey  reft  of   Egypt 
and  the  Balkan  provinces,  tell  the  tale.   What- 
ever the  moralists  may  preach,  the  patriots 
have  happily  no   delusions  on   this  point. 
They  know  that  the  power  of  the  nation  must 
be  kept  up.    The  world  is  to-day  practically 
parcelled    out    between    the    great    powers. 
1  here  are,  of  course,  nations  left  independent 
which   could    be   conquered;    but   they  are 
defended    by    three    very    real    forces-the 
balance  of  power,  the  jealousies  of  neighbors 
and  the  cost  of  conquest.     But  let  any  of 
the  great  powers  cease  to  be  Imperialistic 
before  the  formation  of  a  dominant  inter- 
national   community    has     relegated     Im- 
penahsm  to  the  obsolete  class  of  self-preserva- 
tive efforts,  and  it  will  soon  find  itself  shoul- 
dered out  of  the  position  it  has  occupied  and 
finally  stnpped  of  the  possessions  which  have 
made  for  the  wealth  of  its  people. 
But  may  not  possessions  be  a  burden  to 
"3 


i  1 


' 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

a  nation?    Possibly.    That  is   a   question 
for  each  nation  to  settle  in  respect  to  each 
possession.    To  undertake  the  conquest  or 
the  control  of  a  country  which  costs  more 
than  it  comes  to,  is  an  Imperialistic  mistake 
and  will  lead  to  disaster;  exactly  as  a  business 
man  may  ruin  himself  by  trying  to  extend  his 
business  operations  too  far.    This  is  an  op- 
portunity  for  the  exercise  of  judgment.    Un 
this  ground  patriots  may  legitimately  oppose 
Imperialistic  liiovements-a  subject  we  will 
discuss  more  fully  in  the  next  chapter.    The 
purpose  of  Imperialism  is  to  strengthen,  not 
io  wear  out,  a  nation.    If  a  people  indulge 
so  freely  in  pharisaical  chatter  about  their 
"duty"  toward  weaker  and  more  backward 
peoples  that  they  come  to  believe  that  they 
are  conquering  them  for  the  benefit  of  the 
conquered,  they  may  be  led  into  undertaking 
"duties"  of  this  kind  which  will  prove  to  be 
burdens.    Or  if  a  people  permit  their  greed 
to  outrun  their  prudence,  they  niay  suffer 
for  it.    But  a  wise  Imperiahsm,  which  only 
extends  the  rule  of  its  nation  when  definite 
and  dearly-seen  advantages  are  to  be  secured, 

"4 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

will  not  accumulate  possessions  which  are 
likely  to  be  burdens. 


(11 

.4 


"5 


ff~ 


i  1 


i  i 


tl 


11        ! 


XL 
THE  CITIZEN  AND  IMPERIALISM 

Now  what  is  the  right  attitude,  morally 
speaking,  of  the  citizen  toward  Imperialism  ? 

This  is  a  question  at  which  the  Altruist 
and  the  Egoist  must  definitely  part  company. 
To  the  Altruist,  Imperialism  is   a  violent 
reversal  of  the  basic  principle  upon  which  he 
has   come   thus  far.    Hitherto   his  highest 
conception  of  virtue  has  been  to  serve  others. 
He  may  not  have  always  lived  up  to  it,  but  it 
has  been  to  him  the  desirable  climax  of  moral 
excellence.    When,   however,   he   comes  to 
the  national  boundary  with  Imperialism,  and 
meets  there  his  brother  Boer  or  his  Brother 
Filipino  or  his  Brother  Russian  or  any  other 
Brother  Enemy  armed  against  him,  his  highest 
virtue  is  not  to  serve  him  but  to  smite  him. 
He  must  here  take  leave  at  once  either  of  his 

Altruistic  principles  or  of  his  Imperialistic 

^"-ThT  Egoist,  on  the  other  hand,  faces  no 

ii6 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

such  difficulty.    He  has  always  proceeded 
on  the  theory  that  self-preservation  was  the 
first  law  of  morality  as  well  as  of  nature-if, 
indeed,  there  be  any  difference.     He  may 
have  been  a  slum  worker  and  thus  shown  his 
love  for  h,s  brother  man;  but  he  has  never 
been   self-deceived   into   believing  that  this 
was  anythmg  more  than  a  display  of  enlight- 
ened self-mterest  on  his  part.    He  has  loved 
his  brother  like  a  brother;  but  he  has  never 
pushed  h,s  conception  of  brotherliness  beyond 
the  brotherhood.    He  would  rather  win  an 
enemy  over  rhan  fight  him.    He  would  go 
as  a  missionaiy  for  any  cause  in  which  he 
beheved  mto  any  country;  for  that  would 
satisfy    two    of   his    strongest    desires-the 
spreading  of  the  philosophy  which  he  thinks 
will  make  this  a  better  world  to  live  in,  and 
the  satisfymg  of  every  man's  personal  appetite 
to  convmce  others.     But  he  has  no  haziness 
as  to  the  reality  of  a  national  enemy-that  is 
a  man  in  a  position  of  enmity  to  his  country! 
When  this  attitude  of  enmity  becomes  definite 
unmistakable  and  active,  and  it  is  a  case' 
of  kill  or  be  killed,  he  has  no  fetich  of  "sacri- 

117 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERULISM 

fice"  to  stay  his  hand-he  has  no  thought 
that  it  is  a  duty  to  consider  first  the  interests 
of  these  "hostile  others"-he  has  not  even 
to  do  violence  to  any  notion  of  virtue  within 
himself.  The  aboriginal  struggle  for  existence 
is  on  again,  and  his  highest  conception  of 
virtue  is  patriotism.    For  patriotism,  he  will 
make  his  sacrifices;  for  brother  patriots,  he 
will  suffer  and  die;  for  the  nation,  he  will 
willingly  put  His  own  interests  in  a  common 

Tow  I  am  perfectly  aware  that  the  theo- 
retical Altruist  will  do  all  this  in  practice. 
He  is  commonly  a  very  good  patriot.     But 
this  is  only  a  return  to  the  paradox  with  which 
we  began-i.e.,  that  nations  which  profess 
what  we  call  Christian  ethics  whose  first  word 
is   "sacrifice,"    are   always   overwhelmingly 
Imperialistic,  a  spirit  whose  only  justification 
is  the  righteousness  of  preserving  one  s  selt 
at  the  cost  of  others.    But  the  Altrmst  can  be 
a   patriot,   and   especially   an   Impenahstic 
patriot  who  takes  time  by  the  fore-lock,  only 
by  abandoning  his  Altruism;  while  the  Egoist 
could  only  escape  being  a  patriot  by  showmg 

n8 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

his  Egoism  to  be  so  unintelligent  as  lot  yn 
to  have  reached  the  knowledge  that  the 
preservation  of  the  nation  is  the  surest  means 
of  securing  to  himself  the  highest  average 
chances  of  survival. 

The  next  question  that  naturally  arises  is 
whether  all  Imperialistic  movements  are  to  be 
regarded    as    right.     Is   eveiy   Imperialistic 
war  to  be  supported  ?    Nothing  is  easier  than 
to  state  the  principle  by  which  every  such  case 
must  be  tested.    It  is  merely  a  question  as  to 
whether  the  movement  or  the  war  will  streng- 
then the  chances  of  the  Imperializing  nation 
to  survive.     But,  the  sentimentalist  will  ciy, 
have  the  people  against  whom  it  is  made 
no  rights  m  the  matter  ?    Not  a  right  that  is 
bmdmg  upon  the  Imperialising  people.    On 
their  own  side,  they  have  the  right  to  defeat 
the  movement  and  so  themselves  survive,  if 
they  can.     But  the  Imperialising  people  have 
no  busmess  with  that.    Their  single  duty  is  to 
survive.    If  by  respecting  the  wishes  of  the 
other  people-say,  a  feeble  people-they  can 
m  reality  more  surely  make  certain  of  their 
own  survival,  then  it  is  their  duty  to  respect 

119 


n. 

I.: 
Ik 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

them;  but  it  is  a  duty  based  upon  the  fa«  that 
it  increases  the  power  of  the  Imperial  people 
and  not  for  a  moment  upon  any  claim  of  the 
"  Imperialised"  people  to  be  heard. 

Now  this  is  the  teaching  of  Egoism  un- 
diluted-and   with    an    unusual    frankness; 
and  it  is  altogether  likely  that  any  Altruists 
who  have  obeyed  their  principle  devotedly 
enough  to  read  this  volume  thus  far  will  think 
that  here  at  last' I  have  uncovered  the  cloven 
hoof  which  they  rather  suspect  Egoism  to 
have  inherited  from  its  parent.    A  denial 
that  any  nation  in  the  path  of  an  Impenalistic 
movement  has  any  rights  which  the  Impenal- 
ising  nation  is  bound  to  regard,  is  a  denial 
of  much  of  the   "talk"  with  which  even 
Imperialists  often  accompany  their  aggres- 
sions.   This  is  especially  so  when  the  nation 
which  the  steam-roller  of  Imperialism  is  about 
to  obliterate,  is  a  weak  nation.    From  all 
sides  we  hear  then  much  solemn  preaching 
about  the  "true   interests"   and  the      real 
rights"  of  the  people  who  are  marked  ou 
for  "benevolent  assimilation"  or     paternal 
guidance,"  until  a  visitor  from  Mars  might 

1 20 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

imagine  that  the  war  was  being  undertaken 
solely  for  the  benefit  of  the  misguided  nation 
which  was  so  foolish  as  to  resist  "genuine 
hberty"  and  "a  prosperous  future"  when 
they  were  offered  it  as  free  gifts. 

But  if  the  Egoistic  principle  be  the  true  one, 
the  one   question  which   the   Imperialising 
people  must  ask  itself  is—"  Will  this  make 
for  my  survival  ?"    The  moment  you  require 
It  to  consider  the  rights  or  the  interests  of 
the  opposing  nation,  you  take  the  position 
that  another  nation  can  have  a  right  which 
has  a  superior  claim  upon  your  consideration 
to  your  own   right  to  survive.     Now  any 
such  rights  which  the  opposing  nation  can 
have,  must,  of  course,  assist  that  opposing 
nation    to    survive.     Consequently    to    ask 
that  the  Imperialising  people  shall  permit  any 
nght  of  the  opposing  people  to  limit  the 
action  which  their  own  right  to  survive  seems 
to  require,  is  to  ask  that  they  put  the  right 
of  the  opposing  people  to  survive  above  their 
own  right  to  survive.    This  would  be  Altru- 
ism; and  its  logical  results  would  be  that,  when 
two  people  cannot  both  survive,  it  is  the  duty 

121 


I 


'i       ■': 


fiv 


i     ll 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

of  each  to  efface  itself  for  the  sake  of  the  other. 
Under  this  teaching,  patriotism  would  become 
immoral  selfishness;  love  of  country  would  be 
ashamed  to  show  its  face  in  the  presence  of 
love  of  a  neighboring  country;  competing 
merchants  would  race  each  other  into  bank- 
ruptcy so  that  the  "survivors"  might  have 
the  better  field;  and  competing  worknen 
would  seek  a  hero's  death  in  the  chamber 

of  suicide.  ^   ^        •     •  i      r 

Now  the  working  out  of  the  pnnciple  ot 
the  absolute  and  universal  dominance  of  the 
right  of  every  nation  to  make  its  survival  sure, 
is  mitigated  by  the  fact  that  a  kindly  treatment 
of  the  Imperialised  people  is  almost  always 
in  the  inte  :st  of  the  Imperialising  people. 
The  old  practice  of  tearing  a  nation  up  by 
the  roots,  sowing  its  cities  with  salt,  and 
carrying  its  people  off  into  servitude,  would 
not  "pay"  under  modem  conditions.    We 
know  much  better  than  that  now.    Slavery 
has,  for  instance,  been  outlawed  by  civilization, 
it  having  been  found  that  the  practice  was 
much  more  of  a  menace  to  the  chances  of 
survival  enjoyed   by  any  people  than   the 

122 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

poMibility  of  thus  getting  free  labor  was 
a  help.     This,  of  course,  refers  to  white 
slavery.    Opposition  to  black  slavery  on  the 
part  of  "whites"  is  largely  a  blend  of  the 
instinctive  belief  in  the  wisdom  of  individual 
liberty  which  has  beco.'ne  one  of  the  mightiest 
evolutionary  forces  in  the  human  breast,  and 
of  the  pity  for  all  sufFerihg  which  has  grown 
out  of  the  great  benefits  which  have  corn- 
to  such  as  made  it  a  practice  to  succor  suffering 
men  and  animals.    A  conquered  people  are 
now  treated  in  a  very  different  manner.    As 
we  have  said  at  the  outset,  their  treatment 
depends  upon  the  opinion  of  the  conqueror 
as  to  what  particular  course  will  pay  him  best. 
Oermany  demands  an  indemnity  from  Franco; 
Bntam  makes  a  grant  to  the  Boers;  but  this' 
does  not  mean  that  the  Boers  had  superior 
nghts    over  their  conqueror  to  the  French- 
only  that  Germany  thought  it  in  her  interest 
to  cnpple  France,  while  Britain  thought  it  in 
her  interest  to  make  the  Boers  contented. 

The  test,  however,  is,  in  every  case,  no 
matter  what  softer  professions  may  be  made 
the  Egoistic  question-"  What  will  best  make 

123 


ir 


IT 


^    J  yi' 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

for  our  power?"    And  that  is  the  proper 
tett— the  right  test— the  moral  test.    Pend- 
ing the  formation  of  an  international  com- 
munity,  with   international   courts   capable 
of  enforcing  their  "findings,"  the  nation  is 
to-day  in  the  position  of  the  family  when 
the  family  was  the  Fighting  Unit.    It  must 
make  sure  of  its  survival  first.    Like  the 
business  man,   it   stn-i^gles   always  toward 
"independence."    The  true  course  then  for 
the  clearheaded  citizen  is  to  study  the  foreig?> 
policy  of  his  country  with  an  eye  single  to  this 
duty    of   survival.    When    he    thinks   that 
a  threatened  war  will  weaken  the  nation,  he 
should  oppose  it— and  should  oppose  it  on 
that  ground;  but  once  the  majority  have 
decided  against  him,  and  war  has  commenced, 
he  can  have  no  duty  but  to  help  push  it  to  as 
successful  a  conclusion  as  is  possible. 

Thus  Egoism  solves  another  question  with 
which  the  lecture-hall  morality  of  our  time 
is  so  disturbed:— i.e.,  how  can  a  man  enthusi- 
astically give  his  support  to  a  war  which  he 
opposed  before  it  broke  out  and  which  he 
believes  to  be  wrong?    On  the  Altruistic 

124 


i  UPii 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

principle,  he  cannot;  and  it  ii  hard,  indeed, 
to  ««  how  he  can  give  his  lupport  to  any  war 
at  all.    Count  ToUtoi,  with  his  doctrine  of 
entire  non-resistance,  is  a  logical  Altruist. 
But  to  the  Egoist,  the  good  or  bad  policy 
of  a  war  ceases  to  be  a  live  issue  the  moment 
war  becomes  inevitable.    He  only  opposed 
the  war  because  it  would  hurt  his  own  country; 
and  now  that  war  has  come,  despite  his  pro- 
tests, it  IS  clear  that  this  same  principle  of 
thinking  first  of  his  own  countiy  must  lead 
him  to  tiy  to  bring  her  out  of  a  bad  business 
as  nearly  victorious  as  ht  can.    If  it  was  bad 
-because   it  was   rislcy-for  her  to  enter 
upon  the  war,  it  will  be  ten  times  as  bad  if  she 
actually  loses  any  shred  of  prestige  in  the  war 
through  the  failure  of  his  section  of  the  people 
to  do  their  utmost  to  make  her  successful. 
Another   delicate   question   is   answered    at 
the  same  rinie—i.e.,  how  can  both  sides  be 
nghtmawar?    They  are  right  in  most  wars. 
That  is,  they  are  each  fighting  for  survival. 
Both  are  morally  right  in  doing  this,  unless 
the  going  to  war  at  all  was  for  either  of  them 
a  blow  at  its  own  chances  to  survive. 

"5 


11* 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

All  these  things  are  believed  by  the  people, 
no  matter  what  their  moral  teachers  may  have 
persuaded  them  to  say,  parrot-fashion.   They 
believe  that  it  is  unpatriotic  for  a  citizen  to 
criticise  the  course  of  his  country  in  going  to 
war  at  all  while  the  war  rages.    They  believe 
that  their  country  is  always  right  when  it  goes 
to  war— unless  the  war  is  a  disaster.    Wars 
are  judged,  not  by  pretended  "causes,"  but  by 
results.    The   common   man   pays,   indeed, 
little  attention  to  "causes"  except  for  contro- 
versial purposes  with  a  critic.    He  knows 
that  it  is  his  side  against  the  other  side,  and  he 
is    for   his    own  side.     Much  confusion  of 
thought  comes  from  the  false  "causes"  of  war 
which  are  so  generally  advertised.     Practi- 
cally, there  is  one  "cause"  for  all  wars, 
whether  of  the  jungle,  of  the  battle-field  or 
of  the  stock  exchange. 


126 


XII. 

THE  SOCIAL  REFORMER  AND 
IMPERIALISM 
That  Imperialism  often  acts  as  a  bar  to 
domestic  reform,  no  student  of  politics  will 
deny.    And  this  fact  alone  is  enough  to  damn 
It  m  the  mind  of  a  man  who  has  never  cast  his 
eye  far  enough  afield  to  discern  that,  without 
the  spirit  of  which  Imperialism  is  the  modem 
manifestation,    domestic    reform    would    be 
impossible.     Kipling  sings  derisively  of  those 
who 

" think  the  Empire  still 

Is  the  Strand  and  Holbom  Hill;" 
but  they  are  no  more  short-sighted  than  any 
who  imagine  that  there  is  no  vital  connection 
between  social  reform  and  national  defence. 
Yet  unless  the  gate  be  held  against  the  enemy, 
It  IS  of  little  use  to  trouble  about  "the  problem 
of  the  unemployed"  inside.  A  man  might 
as  well  devote  his  whole  attention  to  improving 
the  plumbing  of  a  house  which  was  already 
on  fire. 

127 


if 


1 

9 

! 

! 

■  |M 

'  ^i 

4 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

Still  this  circumstance  that  Imperialism  has 
been  so  often  employed  by  the  champions 
of  privilege  to  scatter  the  forces  of  socia 
reform,  has  resulted  in  arraying  most  social 
reformers  against  it.     On  the  other  hand, 
what  might  be  called  "the  aristocratic  party 
in  most  countries  is  always  actively  Imperi- 
alistic, and  finds  itself  able  to  overwhelm  the 
democracy  almost  at  will  by  the  simple  device 
of  crying  out  that  "the  nation  is  m  danger. 

A  whole  set  of  influences  tend  to  rivet  this 
connection  between  the  beneficiaries  of  "  privi- 
lege" and  Imperialism,  and  to  make  perma- 
nent  the   divorce   between  the  enemies  of 
"  privilege"  and  Imperialism.    To  begin  with, 
an  aristocracy  seldoms  thinks  it  to  be  a  duty 
to  carry  Altruism   much  farther  than  the 
spending  of  the  small  change  of  charity.     It 
is  convinced  of  its  own  rightful  superiority, 
and  thinks  it  quite  natural  that  it  should 
enjoy  privileges  which   are   denied  to  less 
fortunate  mortals.     It  sees  that  this  happens 
every  day  at  home;  and  so  is  not  inclined  to 
question   the   mysterious  "dispensations  of 
Providence"  when  the  nation  to  which  it 

128 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

belongs  is  set  to  rule  over  another  nation 
A  democrat,  on  the  other  hand,  never  has 
the  word  "equality"  ofF  his  lips.    His  notion 
of  Altruism  is  not  charity,  but  the  giving 
of  his  life  to  a  fight  for  justice  for  his  fellow 
man.    He  goes  to  the  slums,  not  primarily  to 
deliver  alms  or  even  to  scatter  the  largess 
of  education  and  bathing  facilities,  but  to 
preach  a  noble  discontent  and  to  distil  into 
the  minds  of  the  most  hopelessly  discouraged 
and  submerged  the  belief  that  they  have  as 
many  rights  as  the  Duke  with  his  acres  or 
the    trust  king"  with  his  crocks.    Naturally 
such  a  worker,  believing     .    .  ^ding  principle 
to  be  Altruism,  talking  or     ..e  brotherhood 
of  man,     is  passionately  ready  to  defend  the 
rights    of  the  Boer  or  the  Filipino  against 
the  superior  force  of  his  own  nation.     He  is 
not  sarisfied  with  the  idea  that  his  nation 
can  govern  these  people  better  than  they  can 
govern   themselves-an   idea   which   fits   in 
perfectly  with  the  theory  of  life  entertained 
by  the  aristocrat.    The  democrat  maintains 
for  them  the  right  to  misgovern  themselves 
If  they  want  to;  argues  that  only  by  working 

129 


i 


Iff'; 


IJi 


1  :   Iri 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

out  their  own  destiny  can  a  people  make  real 
progress;  and  declares  that  a  conquering  force 
can  bring  no  gift  in  its  hand  at  all  equal  in 
value  to  the  liberty  which  it  filches.  Con- 
sequently he  is  anti-imperialistic  for  conscience 

S2I.K6* 

Then  the  great  sport  of  war  has  usually 
been    played    by    the    aristocrat.      Private 
soldiers  are  the  pawns  with  which  he  plays. 
For  him,  the  battle-field  is  the  bed  of  glory; 
and  his  worid  offers  him  such  sweet  rewards 
for  prowess  in  war  that  the  doors  of  the 
Temple  of  Janus  are  to  him  his  widest  doors 
of  opportunity.     But  the  democrat  goes  to 
war  with  the  private  soldier,  who  seldom 
eets  glory  except  in  unindividualised  masses, 
and  to  whom  it  is  "a  day',  work"  of  a  brut- 

alising  sort. 

Then  there  is,  of  course,  the  effects  upon 
politics  of  which  we  have  already  -poken. 
Imperialism  protects"privilege,"both directly 

and  indirectly.  If  both  democrat  ar  d  aristo- 
crat were  equally  Imperialistic,  a  great  war 
would-none  the  less-distract  attention  from 
home  politics.    But  this  effect  is  magnified 

130 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

by  the  fact  that  the  democrat  is  generally  in 
open   antagonism  to  Imperialism,   and   the 
people  are  unwilling  to  trust  him  with  the 
guiaance  of  the  nation  when  they  think  that 
a  forward  movement  should  be  made.     Thus 
just   when   the   democrat   has   secured    the 
attention  of  the  people  and  shown  them  that 
they  are  suffering  because  of  the  existence 
of  certain  privileges  enjoyed  by  "the  classes," 
and  just  as  "the  classes"  are  expecting  to  be 
stripped  of  these  much  cherished  advantages, 
the  flag  of  Imperialism  is  raised,  and  the 
democrat   i.   left  without   a  following  and 
the    pnvileges"  are  once  more  saved. 

Hence  nothing  is  more  natural  than  that 
the  aristocrats  should  be  Imperialistic  and 
tfie  democrats  anti-imperialistic.     But  it  is 
doubtful  if  either  of  them  is  actuated  by  as 
true  motives  as  those  which  move  the  great 
mass  of  the  people  who  instinctively  rush 
to  the  defence  of  the  nation  when,  at  any 
time  or  for  any  cause,  the  national  flag  has 
gone  under  Sre.     The  time  may  be  badly 
chosen   and   the   alleged   "cause"   may   be 
outrageous;  but  the  people  know  that  the 

131 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

worse  the  time,  the  more  need  is  there  to  rally 
to  the  flag,  and  that  all  "causes"  are  but 
pretences  except  the  cause  of  national  self- 
preservation. 

We  have  said  that  "Imperialism  protects 
privilege;"  and  in  so  far  as  a  nation  cannot 
fight  for  its  national  existence  and  attend  to 
internal  improvements  at  the  same  time,  this 
must  always  be  so.    But  with  most  nations, 
if  this  were  the  only  time  and  way  in  which 
Imperialism    protected    privilege,    it   would 
amount  to  very  little  in  the  long  lifeof  a  people. 
The  protection  which  Imperialism  gives  to 
that  feeling  of  internal  security,  which  is  the 
necessary  atmosphere  of  social  reform,  would 
be  immensely  greater.     Imperialism  would 
become  in  that  case  the  guardian  and  ally  of 
social  reform;  for  exactly  the  same  reason 
that  a  man  can  give  more  attention  to  his  book 
in  a  sheltered  town  house  than  in  a  woodland 
hut  with  possible  hostile  Indians  prowling 

about. 

And  this  is  the  way  in  which  Impenalism 
would  ever  affect  social  reform,  if  social 
reformers  were  always  sincere  and  enthusi- 

132 


r  \ 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

astic  Imperialists.     If  the  people  felt  that  it 
was  as  safe  to  trust  a.  democratic  as  an  aristo- 
cratic  government  with  the  guidance  of  the 
nation   m   a   time   of  international   unrest, 
they  would  never  put  a  democratic  govern- 
ment out  of  office  or  regard  a  democratic 
party    as    "politically    impossible"    simply 
because  wars  or  rumors  of  wars  filled  the  air 
It  IS  hard,  indeed,  to  see  when  they  would 
dismiss    a    reforming    government    at    all. 
l^nvilege,     when  it  must  stand  alone,  is 
mdefensible;  and  a  democracy  with  the  ballot 
will    always    condemn    it    to    death.     The 
democracy  only  stays  its  hand  when  it  fears 
to  shoot  at  "privilege"  lest  it  hit  something 
else.    The  friends  of  "privilege"  are  veiy 
adroit  at  getting  it  under  cover;  but  it  hides 
nowhere  so  often  or  so  effectively  as  behind 
the  belief  that  only  the  privileged  classes  can 
be  depended  upon  to  defend  the  nation.     Let 
the    democrats    once    uproot    that    popular 
belief  and  they  will  have  struck  the  greatest 
blow  for  human  emancipation  which  has  been 
seen  since  the  discovery  of  printing. 
And   why   should   they   not    uproot   that 
^33 


ill  i 


i 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

belief?    Imperialism  is  the  proper  display 
of  Egoism  in  an  age  in  which  the  great  nations 
are  manoeuvring  over  the  vast  battle-field 
of  the  world,  hoping  to  make  actual  war 
unnecessary  by  the  skill  with  which  they  take 
up  their  positions  for  it.    Imperialism  will 
be  the  right  policy  until  the  nations  are  safe 
without   it.    Nothing  but   the   delusion   of 
Altruism  could  induce  democratic  leaders  to 
think    otherwise.    They    imagine,    because 
they  are  giving  their  lives  to  a  fight  for  justice 
for  their  fellow  men,  that  they  are  moved 
by  a  devotion  to  the  interests  of  these  fellow 
men.     If  a  dog,  rescuing  one  of  his  own 
"pack"  from  drowning,  is  an  Altruist,  then 
they    are    Altruists;   but   if  this   be  Altru- 
ism,   then    Altruism    is    nothing    but    the 
enlightened     Egoism    of    "pack     loyalty," 
hardened  into  an  instinct.     And  that  same 
enlightened  Egoism  will  make  the  "pack" 
fight  every  other  "pack"  on  sight. 

The  democratic  leader  does  nothing  at  home 
which  enlightened  Egoism  would  not  require 
him  to  do.  He  is  endeavoring  to  save  his 
brother  man  in  the  way  that  seems  to  him  to  be 

134 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPEBULISM 

the  b«,,  which  is  precisely  what  the  aristocrat 
IS  doing  when  he  organizes  a  "night  school" 

:Vr'  ''""''«  f''"''f-">e'poor;Tnd 
which  IS  precisely  what  ,he  soldier  is  doine, 
al»  when  he  carries  off  a  wounded  comrade 

whlh  h  -i  '^  '■"'""«  °''  ''"'herhood 

which  began  with  the  family,  and  was  carried 
on  to  the  tribe  and  then  to  the  nation.  Nor 
.s  It  .Wy  tha,  the  democratic  leader,  with  his 

truth  in  TT^  "■'"«'  ^"'  ""^  '"king 
truth  in  the  face,  would  have  thought  of 

callmg  1,  Altruism,  if  this  designation  had 
not  been  suggested  to  him  by  the  school  of 
Al  mistic  ethics  which  pervades  the  com- 
muni^  and  is  especially  acrive  in  "rescue 
work    among  the  poor. 

But,  having  accepted  r\h  false  doctrine 
or  Altruism  f™m  his  co-workers,  the  demo- 
cratic leader  is  much  truer  to  it  than  are  his 

teachers.    He  sees  that  if  it  be  a  d«y  to 
sacrifice"  yourself  for  a  b™ther-not  b^ 

c  use  of  the  good  it  will  do  you  but  because 
of  the  good  It  will  do  him-,hen  there  is 
nothing  m  an  aitificial  national  boundaiy  to 
.»l.eve  you  fn>m  that  duty.     ManisasJuch 

•35 


Im 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

your  brother— under  the  teaching  of  Altruism 
—if  he  be  French  or  Russian  or  Spanish  or 
Filipino,  as  if  he  live  on  the  next  street  to  you; 
and,  consequently,  if  you  must  agitate  m 
order  to  get  certain  "rights"  for  your  brother 
in  a  near-by  slum,  you  must  not  go  to  war 
in  order  to  take  these  same  "rights"  away 
Tom  your  brother  in  a  distant  or  hostile 
country.    This  is  logical  Altruism,  and  the 
democratic  leader  is  seldom  afraid  to  follow 
logic,  no  matter  how  many  popular  lions  bar 
the  path.    Bnt  nc  will  generally  find  that 
when  he  sets  out  on  this  road  of  logic,  the  men 
who  taught  him  his  Altruistic  nonsense  will 
turn  back  when  the  crowd  do;  and  he  will  go 
on  alone  to  die— politically,  at  all  events- 
for  his  "brother  Boer."    His  Altruistic  co- 
workers, in  the  meantime,  m^y  go  out  as 
chaplains  with  the  Imperialistic  force. 

What  the  democratic  leader  needs  is  to 
sweep  his  mind  free  from  sentiment  and 
examine  it  frankly  for  a  few  moments.  Does 
he  "sacrifice"  himself  for  his  fellow  man? 
Would  he  prefer,  all  things  being  considered, 
to  take  any  other  course?    Would  he  be 

136 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIi»JJSM 

happier  in  retirement  or  wearing  the  livery 
of  "privilege?"    Let  him   be  honest  with 
himself;  and  he  will  find  that  he  is  but  satis- 
fying an  inner  appetite  born  of  an  extreme 
■ense  of  brotherhood.     He  is  doing  the  thing 
that  he  would  prefer  to  do.     He  is  an  Egoist-- 
a    product   of  the   most    highly   developed 
modem  Egoism— a  man  who  labors  for  his 
fellows,  not  under  cold  compulsion  but  for 
the  pure  love  of  it.     And  if  this  be  not  a  more 
desirable  person— the  man  who  takes  pleasure 
m  domg  good-than  the  pet  child  of  Altruism, 
to  whom,  it  is  a  "sacrifice'^  to  do  good.  I  am  no 
judge  of  the  popular  taste  in  such  things.     I 
had  rather  myself  any  day  have  a  gift  from 
a  man  who  wanted  to  give  it— from  a  "cheer- 
ful g^-        -than  from  a  man  who  would 
really  like  to  keep  it  for  himself. 

Then  the  moment  the  democratic  leader 
beconies  consciously  an  Egoist,  he  escapes 
one  of  the  bitterest  pains  of  his  career-that 
of  havmg  to  distrust  the  people  on  certain 
regular  occasions.  Usually,  trust  of  the  people 
IS  a  fundamental  principle  with  him.  He 
believes  m  government  by  the  whole  people- 
's; 


« 


s 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

not  by  a  few  people.    In  other  words,  he  is 
a  democrat.    He  knows  that  the  people  may 
make  mistakes  through  insufficient  informa- 
tion; but  he  is  confident,  that  when  the  facts 
have  been  well  put  before  them,  they  will 
decide  rightly.    To  this  rule,  he  hardly  knows 
an  exception— until  the  trumpet  of  Imperial- 
ism sounds.    Then,  every  time  and  in  spite 
of  the  fullest  information,  and  in  face  of  all 
the  efforts  of  fnmself  and  his  fellow  workers 
in  the  past,  the  people  go  "wrong."    But 
they  only  go  "wrong,"  if  Altruism  is  a  true 
principle,  and  patriotism  is  a  revival  of  bar- 
barism.   If,  on  the  other  hand.  Egoism  is 
the  true  principle,  then  patriotism  becomes 
a  virtue  and  the  people  are  to  be  trusted  in 
war  as  in  peace. 

The  great  pity  of  this  destruction  of  the 
influence  of  the  democratic  leader  by  his 
suicidal  belief  in  Altruism,  is,  of  course, 
the  narrow  limits  it  puts  to  his  usefulness  as 
a  social  reformer.  But  another  evil  effect 
more  in  touch  with  our  subject  is  that  it 
deprives  Imperialism  of  its  best  and  most 
intelligent  supporter.    The  man  who  labors 

138 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

to  better  the  condition  of  the  common  people, 
»  the  man  who  does  most  to  strengthen 
the  nation.    Nations  are  powerful  just  in 
proportion  as  the  people  are  high  in  the  scale 
of  c,v,I,zat.on.   The  "condition  of  the  people" 
question  is  the  great  international  question. 
O*^  course,  there  are  other  forces  which  tell  in 
the  competition  of  the  nations;  but  no  force 
tels  so  mightily  as  the  status  of  the  great 
bulk  of  the  people.     To  raise  this  stftus, 
the  democratic  leader  labors;  and  whenever, 
during  a  long  period  of  peace,  he  succeeds  in 
securing  a  decided  advance  for  his  people, 
he   has   given   the   Imperialists   their   most 
potent  arm  when  again  they  must  take  the 
held. 

Now  if  social  reform  and  Imperialism  could 
always  go  forward,  hand-in-hand,  the  progress 
of  the  nation  would  be  much  greater.    The 
leadership   of  the   aristocrat   is,  of  course 
better  for  Imperialism  than  the  opposition 
of  the  democrat;  but  if  the  democrat  were  as 
enthusiasdc  for  Imperialism  as  the  aristocrat, 
then  his  leadership  would  be  coupled  with 
a  constant  betterment  of  the  condition  of  the 

139 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPEBIAUBM 

people— or,  in  other  words,  of  the  strength 
of  the  nation— while  the  leadership  of  the 
aristocrat  is  always  paid  for  out  of  the  strength 
of  the  nation  by  the  continuance  of  "pnyi- 
leges"—** privileges"  which  mean  a  denial 
of  equal  rights  to  the  rest  of  the  people. 
Under    such    circumstances,    the    democrat 
would  be  by  far  the  most  effective  Imperialist; 
and,  under  his  guidance,  there  would  be  no 
fear  that  the  nation  might  rush  into  war— as 
France  did  in  1870— on  the  desperate  chance 
of  protecting  "privilege"  and  not  for  the 
legitimate  purpose  of  strengtiienmg  its  own 
position. 


140 


It 
t; 

iO 

IS 

:e 
le 
n 


XIII. 

IMPERIALISM  AND  ULTIMATE 
PEACE 
But,  the  sodal  reformer  says,  is  not  peace 
a  good  thing?  Should  I  not  labor  to  bring 
about  peace?  And,  moreover,  are  there  no 
pnnciples  which  I  must  follow  over  the 
mtemational  boundary?  Is  it  really  im- 
possible  that  my  countiy  may  be  on  the  wrong 
side  m  a  war  ? 

Undoubtedly  assured  peace  would  be  one 
of  the  greatest  blessings  to  which  mankind 
oould  attain.    How  it  is  to  be  reached  we 
have  already  considered.     Just  as  the  indivi- 
dual  had  to   be  genuinely  convinced  that 
certain  of  his  interests  would  be  safer  in  the 
care  of  the  state  than  in  his  own  care,  so  the 
nation  must  find  an  international  court  in 
which  It  will  similarly  trust,  before  the  possi- 
bihty  of  war  can  disappear.    That  is  to  say, 
universal  peace  cannot  be  arbitrarily  decreed 
by  a  majority  vote  at  a  day's  notice;  but  it 

HI 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

must  come  as  the  usual  and  inevitable  result 
of  favoring  antecedent  conditions.  We  pro- 
gress, socially  as  well  as  physically,  by  evo- 
lution; not  by  fiat. 

Now  what  the  social  reformer  must  do  is 

to  labor  to  bring  about  the  conditions  which 

will  compel  peace.    This  is  quite  a  different 

thing  from  attempting  to  stampede  the  world 

into  peace  by  pretending  that  these  conditions 

already   prevail.    There   is   nothing   to   be 

gained  by  out-running  the  truth— by  saying 

"peace,  peace,  when  there   is  no  peace." 

Just  to  the  extent  that  we  build  up  a  powerful 

international  authority,  to  that  extent  shall  we 

have  peace;  and  just  to  the  extent  that  we 

convince  the  nations  that  their  interests  will 

be  better  protected  by  such  an  authority, 

shall  we  succeed  in  building  it  up.  And  that  is 

the  point  to  keep  in  mind— i.e.,  the  interests 

of  the  nation. 

When  the  social  reformer  thinks  to  bring 
about  peace  by  decrying  national  feeling  and 
declaring  patriotism  to  be  obsolete,  he  is 
"putting  the  cart  before  the  horse."  He  is 
tiing  a  step  equivalent  to  asking  the  indivi- 

142 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

dual  to  stop  protecting  himself  before  family 
cooperation  had  begun.    His  pohcy  would 
make  a  hiatus  between  national  self-preser- 
vatmn  and  the  self-preservation  of  a  united 
civilization.     Now  the  race  has  not  evolved 
to  Its  present  position  by  this  method  at  all. 
The  mdividual  kept  right  on  protecting  him- 
self  until  family  co-operation  was  in  full  swing 
and  took  from  him  every  o^oportunity-within 
the  scope  of  its  influence-to  protect  himself. 
He  did  not  stop  protecting  himself  that  the 
family  might   be  formed.    If  he  had,  the 
chances  are  that  he  would  have  disappeared 
and  the  family  would  never-on  his  initiative 
-have  been  formed.    What  he  did  was  to 
protect  himself  unceasingly  while  the  family 
shelter  was  being  built  up  around  him;  and 
It   was   only   when   that   shelter  effectively 
guarded   him  on  any  side  that  his  active 
vigilance  on  that  side  was  held  in  abeyance. 
And  that  has  been  his  practice  down  to  the 
present  moment.    Man  always  protects  him- 
self  on  every  side  where  he  is  liable  to  attack- 
and  he  stands  ready  to  protect  himself  again 
on  any  side  long  secure  from  attack  if  the 

143 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

attack  be  renewed.  It  is  never  that  he  stops 
protecting  himself;  it  is  always  that  the 
attacks  cease. 

So  it  is  with  the  nation.     It  must  be  ready 

to  protect  itself  as  long  as  there  is  the  slightest 

danger  of  attack.    And  when  we  say  "  protect 

itself,"  we  mean  protect  its  interests— protect 

every  possession   and  privilege  which  helps 

the  individuals  who  make  up  the  nation  to 

survive.    When  the  time  comes  that  these 

interests  are  in  no  danger  of  attack,  the 

readiness  to   protect  will   naturally  wither 

for  lack  of  use.    But  it  will  certainly  outlast 

its  usefulness;  for  it  will  not  commence  to 

decay  until  the  outside  protection  is  complete, 

and  the  decay  of  an  instinct  is  a  slow  process. 

As  for  international  co-operation,  which  is 
to  bring  about  this  outside  protection,  that, 
too,  will  be  the  work  of  self-interest.  We 
have  already  discussed  some  instances  of  it, 
such  as  the  understanding  between  Britain 
and  the  United  States.  Both  of  these  nations 
are  more  secure  because  of  co-operation. 
If  they  were  not,  all  the  fine  speeches  in  the 
world   would    not   make    them    co-operate. 

144 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPEBIAUSM 

very  mu,-h  1.       ■  1-     ■       '"  ««>nipHshing 

labor  and  the  men  who  buy  and  sell  are  The 

wrafford  ogive  uptheright  of  aggression  upon 

afford  the  nsk  of  trade  disturbance  and  the 
cost  of  competitive  fleets  and  armies  whch 
the  poss.b.h.y  of  war  implies.    Here  itts 
comes  clear  enough  what  the  social  reformer 
en  do  for  peace     He  can  increase  the  powe 
of  the  people;  he  can  educate  the  busy  and 
the  unthmking  in  the  advantages  ofl«"- 
national  coK,peration;   he  can  compel  the 
advocates  of  every  war  to  p™ve  that^t  wal 
advantageous  to  the  nation  as  a  whole.    Bui 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

he  can  do  none  of  these  things  if  he  first  kills 
his  influence  with  the  people  by  asking  them 
to    stop    protecting   themselves   before   the 
necessity    for    protection    has    disappeared. 
Patriotism  is  the  instinct  of  national  protection 
and  to  attempt  to  dull  its  sensations  or  to 
slacken  its  action  while  national  protection 
is  still  a  requirement  of  international  con- 
ditions, is  a  step  akin  to  destroying  the  heanng 
of  a  wild  animal  who  is  in  danger  of  bemg 
stalked  by  an  enemy. 

As  to  the  existence  of  principles  which  cross 
the  national  boundaries,   and  which  must 
effect   the    social    reformer's    judgment   ot 
inter-national   relationships,   including  war, 
there  is  only  one  question  to  be  answered- 
viz  — Arethey  of  greater  importance  than  the 
first  law  of  nature?"    Are  they  not,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  only  subsidiary  developments 
of  that  law  ?    Is  not  every  principle  for  which 
the  social  reformer  stands  intended  to  increase 
the  chances  of  the  individual  to  survive  and 
be  happy  ?    This  is  surely  the  reason  why  he 
advocates  liberty,  for  instance;  or  a  broader 
franchise,  or  freedom  of  trade.    And  these 

146 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

prmcaples  may  be  labored  for  without  refer- 
ence .o  international  boundaries  in  all  cal 

BuMvhen  the  root  question  of  national  sut 
vival  comes  up,  the  interests  of  the  branch 
questions  which  live  only  throl  fhet 
connection    with    it    ^^^    l     ji      .  " 

rebellion  aga^* it  '   ""    '"'"^  J""""^   ' 
It  is  again  a  case  of  pushing  your  DrincinU. 
to  the.r  extreme  limits     You  havr?„  I  "^ 
hand  tH       .n.ipleofsurv-;'::.:^;^^^^^^ 

are  intended  to  assist  survival.  The  first 
pnncpl^tha.  of  survival-is  precbdv  ,h. 
same  as  it  was  when  it  govemed  *"«,*! 

tte  w^d'^?""'  ""f  "S  ="<-  '^^» 

he vr;  "ack^d  't:t'  ™""  "''*«™' 

cultiir,  l"       •     ,.       ''^^'  •'•*  ""■»  of  highest 

avihzation,  is  doing  precisely  the  same  thine 
He  IS  protecting  himself  wherever  he  t 
attacked;  or  else  he  is  dyine  Th,  T  l 
r«  ^'-y»  «op  before  pXtil^V:  J 

physical    force    is    not  yet   obsolete.    The 

'47 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

nations  must  stand  ready  to  fight  for  their 
interests  or  they  will  lose  them.  Thus  war  is 
still  a  method  of  securing  survival;  and  to 
ask  that  the  right  of  war  should  be  foregone 
at  a  time  when  its  exercise  would  make  for 
survival,  on  th  ground  that  the  prosecution 
of  it  will  be  damaging  to  certain  principles 
which  are— at  best— only  expected  to  assist 
in  making  for  survival,  is  to  ask  that  the  end 
be  sacrificed  to  the  means. 

But— to  come  to  the  last  question— cannot 
one's  own  nation  be  in  the  wrong  ?    It  is  eas;, 
to  think  that  it  can  if  we  permit  our  minds  to 
be  confused  by  the  pretended  "causes"  of 
war  with  which  a  highly  organized  civilization 
loves  to  salve  its  conscience.     Obviously,  if 
your  nation   goes  to  war  for  some  noble 
"cause"— say,  to  free  the  slaves— the  oppos- 
ing nation  which  makes  all  this  blood-shed 
necessary  by  resisting  the  benevolence  of  your 
nation,  must  be  in  the  wrong,  and  if  you  had 
had  the  misfortune  to  be  bom  a  citzen  of  that 
nation,  you  would  have  had  to  admit  that 
your  own  nation  was  in  the  wrong.     But 
whenwe  look  the  facts  squarely  in  thefaceand 

148 


THE  ETHICS  OP  mPERIAUSM 

perc.iv.,ha.the  real  "cause"  of  war  is  always 

"mple  a  ,h.ng  ,o  decide  that  one's  own 

or„"arr'"'""'T"«-  ^"^-o"" 

nth  T  """.?'  '"  ""  """g  unless 
« js  so  bad  generally  as  a  national  or- 
gan.zat.on  as  to  deserve  to  have  k, 
chances  of  survival  curtailed.  If  it  ijl^ 
enough  »  live,  it  is  right  for  it  to'^ 
live.     Before  a  cozen  of  a  n,tion  can  say  of 

ZrZlT ,:'"  V  ""Sh.  .o  die.  he  Int 
Iwk  well  ,„  o  the  chances  of  the  future  and 
be  thoroughly  satisfied  that  the  people  com- 

d^r  td  ""'""r"'  '^  "-"Off  after  "s 
death,  and  ,nto  the  chances  of  the  future 
he  must  .eckon  the  possibility  of  fore,"^ 
don«nat.o„.  the  entire  loss  of  its  outld^ 
markets,  the  collapse  of  the  national  ambi '^„s 

«nv  ng»     f    he   never-dying  passion  of  , 
P»ple  to  be  free.    He  must  no,  imagine  an 

«ges  of  a  change  to  that;  he  must  look  a, 

'49 


!;     \ 


-is:  J 

il'i 


Mi 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

things  as  they  are  and  consider  to  what  state 
the  overthrow  of  his  nation  in  war  would 
probably  lead.  There  is  all  the  difference 
in  the  world  between  an  internal  revolution, 
such  as  England  has  had  at  least  twice  and 
France  oftener,  when  a  people  changes  its  own 
form  of  government,  and  a  defeat  by  an 
outside  nation.  So  long  as  it  is  better  for  his 
people  that  they  shall  survive  as  an  indepen- 
dent nation,  the  citizen  is  bound  to  support 
them  in  all  wars  which  genuinely  make  for 
survival;  and  it  is  only  possible  for  him  to 
oppose  a  war  on  the  ground  that  it  will  not 
make  for  survival.  When  he  is  persuaded 
that  it  would  be  better  for  his  nation  not  to 
survive,  then  he  should  not  await  the  coming 
of  war  to  renounce  his  citizenship;  but  should 
voluntarily  and  promptly  cast  in  his  weight 
with  some  other  nation  whose  survival  he  c?n 
support,  and  which  he  would  rather  see  ruling 
his  native  country  than  have  it  permitted  to 
rule  itself. 

Thus  the  circle  completes  itself.  It  is  the 
first  business  oi  nan  to  survive.  He  fights 
at  every  point  for  survival  until  co-operation 

150 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

relieves  him  of  this  necessity  at  certain  points 
oy  giving  him  more"  survival"  for  less  "fight" 
than  he   could   get  for  himself    Now  co- 
operation has  not  yet  abolished  international 
war.    Consequently  man  must  stand  ready 
t-»  fight  at  this  point  until  co-operation  does 
reheve  him  of  the  necessity.    CoK)peration 
must   arrive   first.     It   always   has,   and   it 
always    will.     There    must    be    no    deadly 
opening  m  the  armor  between  the  nation's 
power  of  self-preservation  and  civilization's 
power  to  preserve  it.    Just  as  fast  as  the 
nations  learn  to  coK)perate,  they  will  prepare 
for  the  shrinkage  of  war  preparations  between 
themselves.    Thus  the  social  reformer  should 
work    for  co-operation  and  not  against  pa- 
tnotism.     He    should    be    construcdve,  not 
destructive.    It   may   look    at   times   as   if 
patriotism  barred  the  path  to  international 
co-opera:ion;  but  the  truth  is  that  patriotism 
IS  the  present  form  of  the  only  principle  which 
will   ever   make    international   co-operation 
possible-viz:  enlightened   self-preservation, 
lo  attack  patriotism  is  to  attack  the  very 
force  which  is  to  bring  about  international 

151 


m  tt 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

co-operation  and  universal  peace.  To  attack 
patriotism  is  to  array  self-interest — as  it  is 
now  expressed — against  the  cause  which  hope? 
to  prosper  by  such  an  attack;  and  yet  this 
cause  is  only  a  higher  expression  o^  self- 
interest.  The  proper  course  is  to  build  this 
higher  self-interest  on  tht  foims  of  self- 
interest  which  now  prevail,  showing  always 
that  it  grows  out  of  them  and  never  alarming 
even  the  most  unthinking  with  the  fear  that 
it  is  mec-  .t  to  destroy  them.  We  shall  get 
univerral  peace,  just  as  we  got  domestic  peace 
^!}:'  -ivil  peace — ^that  is,  by  the  slow  conviction 
of  che  vast  majority  that  their  interests  would 
be  best  protected  if  they  combined  their  force 
to  compel  peace — never  by  asking  them  to 
throw  away  their  force  so  that  they  could 
not,  if  they  wanted  to,  break  the  peace. 


152 


XIV. 
THE  PATRIOTIC  INSTINCT 
We   have   referred   to   patriotism   as   the 
instinct  of  national   protection,  or  national 
•eIf.presemt,on;  and  as  there  are  schools  of 
thought  which  look  upon  militant  or  Imperial 
patriotism  as  an  evil  force,  it  may  be  well  to 
give  some  consideration  to  this  phase  of  the 
question.    It  is  charged  against  patriorism, 
for  instance,  that  it  is  blind-that  .t  does  not 
dearly  distinguish  wrong  from  right  when  it 
sets  out  upon  a  crusade-that,  as  Spencer  said 
of  Carlyle,  it  "thinks  in  a  passion."    This  is 
however,  but  another  way  of  saying  that  it  is 
an  mstina,  and  not  always  a  new  and  original 
act  of  the  individual  judgment.    That  is  to 
say,  a  man  does  not  sit  down  calmly  when 
a  threat  is  made  against  his  country  and  after 
considenng  the  matter  for  some  time  hit  upon 
the  novel  but  well-reasoned  idea  that  it  would 
be  better  for  him  to  do  something  toward 
defending  his  native  land.    The  wisdom  of 

'53 


I 


THE  ETHICS   OF  IMPERIALISM 

such  a  course  was  reasoned  out  so  long  ago 
and  has  been  established  by  such  an  endless 
chain  of  human  experiences  and  has  received 
so  emphatically  the  decisive  indorsement  of 
evolution  that  action  in  accordance  with  it  has 
become  what  we  call  an  instinct.  At  the 
first  shadow  of  an  offence  against  even  the 
lightest  symbol  of  his  country,  the  man's  spirit 
is  up  in  arms,  and  he  is  literally  prepared  to 
fight  for  the  defence  of  the  nation  first — if 
necessary — and  enquire  into  the  causes  of  the 
trouble  afterward.  In  this  sense,  patriotism 
is,  indeed,  blind,  and  patriots  do  "think  in 
a  passion." 

But  this  is  the  common  characteristic  of  all 
instincts.  A  mother  will  always  rash  to  the 
defence  of  her  child  without  waiting  to  learn 
the  cause  of  the  quarrel.  Our  pity  goes  out 
to  a  wounded  man  on  the  instant,  although 
we  are  perfectly  aware  that  we  may  learn 
afterward  that  he  richly  deserved  his  wounds. 
Instincts  are  automatic  mental  processes 
which  are  always  set  in  motion  by  certain 
causative  circumstances,  and  whose  prompt- 
ness and  certainty  have  very  much  to  do  with 

154 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

their  value  in  the  list  of  forces  which  make 
for    sunival.     Consequently    patriotism    is 
aroused  automatically  by  every  opponunity  to 
come  to  the  help  of  one's  countiy.     Judgment 
may  be  exercised  with  regard  to  the  opportu- 
nity; but  where  the  opportunity  takes  the 
torm  of  an   assault  upon  the   nation,  the 
patriotic  instinct  has  already  pre-judged  all 
such  cases-^hat  is,  resistance  to  attack  is 
a  fixed  part  of  the  instinct.    The  only  scope 
which  the  mstinct  roily  leaves  to  the  judg- 
ment, m  the  militant  field,  is  as  o  the  wisdom 
ot  attacking  another  nation  for  the  benefit 
of  one  s  own. 

Aggressive  patriotism-that  is,  the  patri- 
otism which  attacks  another  nation-must 
get  Its     cue"  from  the  judgment.     Imperial 
<nterpnses  always  have  been  of  more  or  less 
doubtful  expediency;  and  the  human  judg- 
ment  is  accustomed  to  weighing  the  chances 
for  or  agamst  their  success.    Here  the  instinct 
of  patnotism  waits  most  patiently  upon  the 
fullest  deliberations  of  the  judgment,  so  long 
as  the  judgment  confines  its  attention  to  the 
one  question  of  what  is  good  for  the  nation. 

^55 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

The  only  impatience  which  the  patriotic 
instinct  betrays  in  this  field  is  with  those  who 
perplex  the  deliberations  with  such  anti- 
Egoistic  considerations  as  the  need  of  thinking 
of  what  is  good  for  the  other  nation.  It  is 
when  facing  such  objections  that  patriotism 
appears  in  its  least  lovely  mood.  It  is  petu- 
lant; it  openly  doubts  the  sincerity  and  the 
loyalty  of  the  very  sincere  and  very  loyal  men 
who  raise  these  Altruistic  objections;  it  even 
attempts,  with  an  essential  dishonesty  that 
can  hardly  in  all  cases  be  unconscious,  to 
argue  Altruistically  the  points  raised;  and 
when  it  fails — as  it  generally  does — to  carry 
the  war  into  Africa  in  this  way,  it  meets 
further  argument  by  singing  the  National 
Anthem. 

But  so  long  as  the  judgment  confines  itself 
to  the  real  point  at  issue — the  welfare  of  the 
nation — the  patriotic  instinct  quietly  awaits 
the  word  of  command.  For  this  is  exactly 
what  it  has  been  trained  to  do.  The  long 
processes  of  the  ages  which  have  made  the 
individual  loyal  to  the  Fighting  Unit — ready 
to  resent  attack  on  the  instant,  ready  to  under- 

156 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

take  attack  when  the  judgment  commands- 
have    fixed  the  profitable  lines    of    action 
for  the  patriotic  instinct,  have  developed  it 
here  and  restrained  it  there,  until  it  knows 
Its  duty  like  a  veteran.     We  very  often  forget 
how  much  respect  we  owe  to  these  hoaiy 
instincts  of  ours.    They  are  the  concentrated 
experiences  of  generations  in  whose  long  day 
historic  time  is  but  the  last  clock-beat  or  two. 
They  are  the  hardy  survivors  of  uncounted 
millions  of  experiments,  every  one  of  which 
has  pro\ed  to  be  inferior  to  the  line  of  conduct 
our   instincts   now   advise.    They   are   the 
products  of  unmeasured  ages  of  a  persistent 
Egoistic  struggle  for  existence.    There  has 
not  been  an  ounce  of  the  alloy  of  Altruism 
admitted    into   their    ever-hardening,    ever- 
changing  composition.    They  are  the  most 
lasting  part  of  the  f).  est  mental  equipment 
which  has  survived.     Yet  there  are  those  who 
would  silence  them  with  an  extract  from  last 
night's  address  by  some  orotund  hero  of  the 
lecture   platform   who   thinks  that   he   has 
sufficiently  disposed  of  war  when  he  mentions 
Sherman's  definition  of  it. 

^57 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

The  value  of  this  instinct  to  the  State  will 
hardly   be   questioned.    The   only   possible 
difference  of  opinion  is  as  to  the  fields  of  its 
operation.    In    civil    affairs,    every   one    is 
urged  to  be  as  patriotic  as  he  will.     In  mili- 
tary matters,  however,  there  is  sometimes 
a  difference  of  opinion  over  what  constitutes 
real  patriotism.    The  man  who  cries  out  for 
peace  and  the  man  who  trumpets  for  war, 
each  accuse  thfc  other  of  being  unpatriotic. 
The  test  is,  of  course,  the  one  with  which  we 
have  become  familiar.    Is  war  or  is  peace,  in 
the  particular  case  in  question,  in  the  real 
interest  of  the  nation?    In  answering  this 
question,  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  peace 
is  always  best;  though  peace  with  perfect 
security  to  every  interest  undoubtedly  is  best. 
The  patriotic  instinct,  however,  when  tried 
in  the  spirit  of  evolutionary  Egoism,  is  a  fairly 
good  guide.     It  will  always   resist  attack; 
and   attack   should   always   be    resisted  by 
any  people  not  absolutely  prostrate.    On  the 
other  hand,  it  will  not  attack  unless  the  judg- 
ment declares  that  there  is  much  to  be  gained 
with  little  or  no  risk.    And  so  long  as  the 

158 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

nation  is  the  Fighting  Unit,  attack  should  be 
made  under  such  circumstances. 

But,  it  will  be  asked,  does  not  patriotism 
war  against  cosmopolitanism  and  thus  delay 
the  coming  of  the  millenium  when  the  nation 
will  no  longer  be  the  Fighting  Unit  but  will 
be  instead  a  peaceful  member  of  an  ordered 
community  of  civilized  nations?    We  have 
already  discussed  whether  or  not  a  nation 
should  cease  to  defend  itself  in  order  that 
universal  peace  may  come;  and  have  seen 
that  this  would  be  a  policy  fatal  to  the  indi- 
vidual nation,  more  likely  to  sharpen  and 
reward  the  greud  of  other  nations  than  to 
incline  them  to  peace,  and  contrary  to  the 
course  of  evolutionaiy  progress.    The  indi- 
vidual   has    always   defended   himself  un- 
til   the    necessity    for   defence    has  cisap- 
peared. 

Now  the  only  new  element  that  patriotism 
has  introduced  into  this  question  is  the  fact 
that  it  is  an  instinct  and  not  an  act  of  the 
judgment,  and  that  consequently  it  will  not  so 
soon  recognize  the  really  friendly  attitude  of 
other  powers..  This  is  true;  and,  in  a  measure. 


i 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

it  is  unfortunate.     But  the  only  alternative 

is  to  commence  to  weaken  the  power  of 

patriotism   over  the  masses  of  the  people 

before  the  necessity  for  its  hair-trigger  action 

has    gone.    This   would    be    equivalent    to 

reducing  the  armament  of  a  nation  while 

it  was  still  liable  to  attack,  in  order  that  it 

might  the  more  speedily  prepare  for  the  days 

of  peace  which  appeared  to  be  approaching. 

This   would,  of  course,  be    relaxing   one's 

defensive  measures  in  order  that  peace  may 

come— a  policy  of  which  we  have  already 

seen  the  error. 

The  patriotic  instinct  is  easily  the  most 
valuable  weapon  in  the  arsenal  of  any  nation. 
It  is  impossible  that    all    the  people  shall 
be  kept  as  well  informed  of  the  need  of 
defending  the  interests  of  the  nation  at  each 
particular    point  as  the  few  are  who  give 
their  lives  to  studying  the  foreign  politics 
of  the  nation,  its  foreign  trade  and  the  effect 
of  foreign  relations  generally  upon  the  domes- 
tic welfare  of  the  people.    With  the  majority, 
the  readiness  to  fight  for  the  flag  must  be 
instinctive,  or  it  will  be  too  tardy  for  effect. 

i6o 


e 


THE  ETHICS  OF  MPEBUUSM 

diev  r,«         P««»ge  and  existence  before 

■t  to  stnke  prompdy  and  with  double  tffj^. 

«"d  may  easily  be  worth  to  it  an  addiZ^,' 
^uadron  or  an  army  co^,.  Thu,  to  ptZ 
to  dull  the  patriotic  instinct  before  the  ~«r 
"V  for  national  defence  has  disappeared 

nation  in  order  that  peace  may  come     Th! 
process  will   have  to   be   reverb    Pel': 
"US.  come;  and  then.  i„  the  security  th« "t 
wdl  bnng.  gradually  the  patriodc  intj's^' 
7  «  «  relates  to  national  defence  wiU  « 
dowly  to  deep,  precisely  as  the  Mv^if° 

deco.ng  of  patriotism  and  the  ^ilitary^J 

i6i 


11 


THE  ETHICS  OF  BIPERIALISM 

but  to  preaching  the  positive  and  material 
advantages  of  universal  peace. 

There  is  in  patriotism  an  element  of  race 
jealousy  which  arises  naturally  from  the 
circumstance  that  veiy  frequently  to-day — 
almost  universally  of  old — racial  and  na- 
tional boundaries  are  identical.  But  the 
new  world  is  bringing  about  a  mitigation 
of  this  feeling  Both  in  Canada  and  the 
United  States,  race  patriotisms  are  being 
submerged  by  a  mightier  cross-current  of 
national  patriotism.  The  dividing  lines  of 
race  cease  to  be  gullies  of  hostility,  and 
become  the  chalk-lines  that,  on  a  day  of  sport, 
mark  the  limits  of  friendly  rivalries.  The 
same  thing  is  observed  in  Great  Britain  be- 
tween the  Scotch  and  the  English.  Race  is 
not  forgotten,  but  it  breeds  emulation  and  not 
enmity.  On  the  other  hand,  similiarity  of 
race  is  making  for  peace.  The  Anglo- 
American  entente  has  much  of  this  feeling 
at  its  base,  although  it  is  coaxed  along  by 
similarity  of  interests.  Germany  and  Austria 
are  drawn  togemer  by  a  common  race  origin — 
a  spirit  which  made  the  German  Empire 

162 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

itself  a  possibility.    Thus,  too,  France  and 
Italy  are  discovering  racial  affinities.    This 
coming  together  of  the  nations  in  groups 
makes  for  peace,  always  provided  that  the 
balance  of  power  is  not  disturbed  in  such 
a  way  as  to  precipitate  war.  Such  illustrations 
of  the  softening  down  of  racial  hostility  into 
racial  competition  in  the  service  of  a  common 
county  as  are  seen  in  Great  Britain,  the 
United  States  and  Canada,  may  dispel  the 
uneasiness  with  which  some  regard  persistent 
race  feelmg.     It  will  prove  no  permanent 
Darner  to  a  universal  community.    Just  so 
soon  as  it  is  divorced  from  a  militaiy  national 
patriotism,  it  becomes  one  of  the  most  fruitful 
sources  of  competitive   service   of  the   com- 
munity.   We  might  as  well  wish  that  all 
people  could  live  in  the  same  city  so  that 
the  rivalry  of  cities  might  not  mar  the  general 
peace.    Such  rivalries  as  these  are  healthy, 
and  act  as  spurs  to  enterprise  and  achievement. 
It  IS  not  stagnation  that  we  seek  in  universal 
peace,  but  an  opportunity  for  uninterrupted 
emulous  progress. 


163 


XV. 


i 


INDIVIDUAL  LIBERTY 

Liberty  I — that  is  the  great  gift  which 
a  frankly  Egoistic  philosophy  will  bring  in  its 
hand.  All  through  historic  time,  Altruism 
has  been  the  persistent  foe  of  freedom.  Men 
who  have  felt  it  laid  so  heavily  upon  their 
consciences  to  care  for  the  interests  of  others 
that  they  would  resort  to  means  to  force 
"good"  upon  others  which  they  would  not 
willingly  endure  themselves,  have  in  many 
cases  well  nigh  murdered  human  liberty  in 
their  Altruistic  zeal  for  human  betterment. 
They  have  done  unto  others  what  they  would 
that  these  others  should  not  do  unto  them; 
and  the  result  has  been  disastrous  to  all 
concerned. 

All  religious  persecution  is  Altruistic.  The 
persecutor  has  no  idea  that  he  is  in  personal 
danger  of  being  led  astray  by  the  false  doc- 
trines he  is  striving  to  crush  out;  but  he  thinks 
that  others  may  be  so  mislead  and  so  he  lights 

164 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

h"  fires.    There  may,  it  is  true,  be  an  Egoistic 
desire  on  his  part  not  to  live  in  a  heretical 
world;  and  where  the  spread  of  heresy  would 
lessen  h,s  personal  prestige  and  power,  he  may 
he  concaved  as  endeavoring  to  prevent  this. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  persecutor  always 
arouses  a  tremendous  amount  of  antagonism, 
not  only  from  the  persecuted  but  among  the 
moderates,^  so  that  he  escapes  from  a  world 
tinged  with  heresy  into  a  world  dyed  deep 
with  hatred  and  fear,  and  he  buys  an  extension 
of  power  based  upon  dread  at  the  cost  of 
a  power  based  upon  love  and  respect  which 
must  be  far  more  grateful  to  exercise.    No 
one  can,  however,  understand  the  character 
o»    a    religious    persecutor   without    takiW 
account  of  his  overmastering  devotion  to  his 
religion.    He    looks    upon    himself   as    the 
custodian  of  "God's  truth"  on  earth,  and  as 
responsible  for  it.  preservation  in  the  minds 
of  men.     His  Egoistic  motives  with  regard  to 
It  promise  heavenly  rather  than  earthly  joys. 
So  far  as  this  world  goes,  he  is-when  sincere 
-an  Altruist,  seeking  first  the  interests  of 
others;  and  it  is  in  protecting  the  "God's 

165 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

truth"  entrusted  to  him  that  others  may  be 
blessed  by  it  that  he  makes  ruthless  war 
upon  heresy. 

No  intelligent  Egoist  could  be  a  persecutor 
for  truth's  sake.  He  has  too  high  an  appre- 
ciation of  the  importance  of  the  individual. 
He  knows  that  society  is  only  a  voluntary 
co-operative  community;  and  that  no  man 
finally  surrenders  to  the  community  any 
powers  over  himself  until  it  has  been  over- 
whelmingly established  by  logic  or  by  experi- 
ence that  such  surrender  will  benefit  him. 
He  knows,  too,  that  all  such  surrenders  are 
mutual — that  is  to  say,  that  no  individual 
surrenders  more  than  another.  From  this  it 
follows  that  if  the  society  can  persecute  one 
man  for  his  religious  opinions,  it  can  persecute 
another.  Thus  the  Egoist  who  persecutes 
cannot  escape  the  knowledge  that  he  may  be 
persecuted.  If  the  Altruist  saw  this  risk,  he 
would  regard  it  as  a  glorious  martyrdom. 
The  Egoist,  on  the  other  hand,  must  see  in  it 
a  proof  that  persecution  is  an  evil  principle. 
He  would  reject  persecution,  as  long  ago  he 
rejected  white  slavery  because  the  risk  of 

i66 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

being  en.laved  wa.  a  greater  evil  than  the 
possibility  of  owning  .lave.  wa.  an  advantage, 
rhen  a  belief  in  the  .upreme  value  of 
liberty  i.  intimately  interwoven  with  the  keen 
wnw   of  individualiwn   which   co.r.e.s   with 
E»c,i.m     Altruism  preache.  a  .ub^ction  of 
self  to  the  mass;  Egoism  gives  self  a  c'.Vnity 
and  an  importance.     Men  lift  their  head,  an  J 
trun  themselves;  and  are  not  afraid  to  assume 
the  widest  liberty  which  the  most  effective 
"ocial  cooperation  will  allow.    The  State  is 

which  he  himself  ha.  made  for  his  own  use. 
Ihere  18  no  virtue  in  it  which  is  not  in  the 
individuals  who  compose  it.  All  this  elevates 
the  value  of  liberty  in  the  general  mind;  and 
when  any  custodian  of  "God's  truth"  proposes 
to  violate  hberty  in  the  name  of  truth,  the 
Egoist  IS  ready  with  the  reply  that  libeity  is 
itsetf  the  supreme  moral  truth  and  that  no 
truth  can  be  forwarded  by  its  violation. 

Egoism,  It  is  true,  has  not  always  respected 
liberty.    It  has  not  even  to-day  risen  to  the 
tullest  appreciation  of  the  value  of  liberty 
But  Its  progress  has  been  steadily  toward 

167 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

wider  liberty.    The  first  individuals  to  prac- 
tice   co-operation— who  were,  of  course,  ail 
Egoists,  the  folly  of  Altruism  not  having  yet 
been  bom — ^never  permanently  surrendered 
a  liberty  to  the  community  that  they  did  not 
get  more  real  liberty  back  in  return.    While 
the  non-co-operating  individual  may  seem  to 
be    entirely  free,  his  freedom    is    hemmed 
about    by  the    narrow    boundaries  of  his 
powers  of  defence.    The  fonnation  of  the 
family  community  immensely  widened   his 
liberty,  while   it  restricted   him   only   from 
assault  upon  members  of  the  family.    So  the 
man  who  lives  in  the  most  highly  .  j-  lized 
community  to-day  has  more  freedom  than  the 
savage.    There  are  certain  things  which  he 
cannot  do;  but  the  ease  with  which  he  makes 
his  living,  the  security  of  his  person  and 
property,  the  capacities  for  enjoyment  which 
have  been  cultivated  in  him,  the  opportunities 
to  exercise  these  capacities,  all  combine  to  give 
him  a  liberty  of  which  the  savage  does  not 
dream. 

The  progress  of  civilization  might  well  be 
summed  up  as  the  progress  of  liberty.   Older 

i68 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

civaizations  decayed  with  the  decay  ofliberty. 
In  every  community,  there  are  men  who  seem 
to  be  opponents  of  liberty  for  Egoistic  reasons. 
They  seek  privileges  at  the  expense  of  others 
for   their   own    gratification    and    security. 
But  their  opposition  to  liberty  is  not  due  to 
their  Egoism.    They  are  precisely  like  every- 
body else— that  is,  seeking  to  make  sure  of 
life  and  happiness  in  an  Imperialistic  manner 
—the  only  difference  being  that  they  have 
come  into  possession  of  certain  points  of 
vantage  which  enable  them  to  press  in  the 
manner  of  all  conquerors  upon  the  interests 
and  liberties  of  others.     It  is  not  their  Egoism 
which  is  at  fault,  but  the  conditions  in  which 
we  permit  their  Egoism  to  operate.     Let  us 
take  an  example  about  which  there  arc  will  be 
no  dispute.    A  slave-owner  "owns"  certain 
slaves,  and  he  appears  to  be  an  opponent  of 
liberty.    But  he  is  merely  trying  to  make 
hmiself  as  rich  as  he  can  precisely  like  the 
Abolitionist  manufacturer  who  employs  his 
work  people.    He  lives,  however,  in  a  com- 
munity which  permits  slavery,  and  he  must 
fight  his  battle  of  life  in  the  environment  in 

169 


■i 


5  ' 


lit 


n 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

which  he  finds  himsdf.  Abdish  abveiy;  and 
he  will  again  try  to  make  money;  but  this 
time  he  will  not  be  curtailing  the  libeities 
of  others  by  means  of  chattel  slavery.  Yet  he 
will  be  as  much  an  Egoist  after  as  before  the 
abdUtion  of  slavery. 

These  evil  conditions  which  misdirect  the 
wholesome  force  of  Egoism  have  all  one 
quality  in  common;  and  that  is  that  they  deny 
equal  liberty  to  all  people.  They  enable  some 
men  to  exploit  other  men;  and  they  always 
do  it  by  either  fencing  in  or  fencmg  out  the 
exploited  "  others."  The  Standard  Oil  Co., 
for  instance,  owned  oil  lands  to  which  other 
men  could  not  get  access,  and  controlled  the 
steel  highways  of  the  nation.  But  the  faults 
lay,  not  with  the  Egoism  of  the  Standard  Oil 
magnates  which  was  precisely  like  the  Egoism 
of  their  opponents,  but  with  the  system  which 
permitted  them  to  hold  certain  parts  of  the 
common  estate  as  a  private  monopoly.  Now 
these  limitations  of  liberty  are  evil;  and 
against  them  have  warred  the  forces  of  reform. 
But,  unhappily,  these  forces  have  not  been 
agreed  upon  their  plan  of  attack.     Broadly 

170 


i 


v.F^i^m'm^!^ 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

speaking,  they  have  been  divided  into  two 
great  classes-those  who  proposed  to  dispel 
the  evil  by  a  farther  restriction  of  liberty,  and 
those  who  advocated  an  extension  of  liberty 
The  "restrictionists"  deal  with  the  symptoms 
of  the  disease;  the  advocates  of  liberty  with  its 
cause.    The  "restrictionists,"  for  instance, 
would  attempt  to  cure  diunkenness,  igno- 
rance, incapacity  and  lack  of  industry,  with 
the  belief  that  these  are  the  causes  of  poverty, 
and  that  poverty  brings  about  the  lack  of 
liberty  from   which   the  poor  suffer.     The 
other  party  of  refonners  would  propose  that 
more  liberty  be  given  the  poor,  believing  that 
this  would  cure  poverty  and  that  the  disap- 
pearance of  poverty  would  be  followed  by 
the  drying  up  of  its  fruits,  such  as  drunken- 
ness, ignorance,  indolence  and  vice. 

Now  the  cause  of  the  poor  has  made  pro- 
gress. Victories  have  been  won  and  the 
condition  of  the  people  improved.  And  these 
victories  have  always  been  the  work  of  that 
wing  of  the  party  which  asks  for  widerliberty. 
The  growth  of  Parliamentary  government  iu 
England  is  a  succession  of  victories  for  the 


T^m>- 


II 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

friends  of  popular  liberty,  and  they  have  been 
rteadily  accompanied  by  an  improvement  in 
the  condition  of  the  people.    The  French 
Revolution  was  an  immense  step  forward  in 
the  popular  liberties  of  the  French  people; 
and  the  material  conditions  of  the  French 
people  advanced  with  the  same  stride.    The 
happiness  of  the  people  of  Europe  to-day 
agr.es  almost  exaaly  with  the  measure  of 
liberty  they  enjoy.    The  discovery  of  America 
opened  a  new  door  of  opportunity,  relaxed 
the  hold  which  the  tyrannical  land-owners 
of  Europe  held  upon  their  peasantry,  and 
thus  brought  an  access  of  liberty  even  to  those 
who  did  not  cross  the  Atlantic;  and  it  was 
followed  by  a  wave  of  prosperity  and  bettered 
conditions  wherever  its  influence  was  felt. 
In  America,  with  its  boundless  wealth  of  free 
bnd,  great  liberty  was  enjoyed;  and  one  of  the 
finest  communities  which  history  has  ever 
seen,  grew  up  as  a  result.    The  people  of 
the  United  States  a  generation  ago,  like  the 
people  of  Canada  to-day,  were  world  models 
m  sobriety,  intelligence,  mental  acuteness,  and 
a  high  average  of  industrial  capacity.    No 

172 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

one  will  pretend  that  the  general  level  is  a, 
high  m  the  United  States  now,  even  if  recent 
immigrants  be  excluded  from  the  comparison. 
And  yet  what  change  has  come,  except  that 
the  hberty  which  free  land  guarantees  has 
disappeared,  and  millioned  monoplies  have 
ansen  which  deny  equal  liberties  to  other 
American  citizens  ? 

Now  what  is  the  relation  of  the  Egoistic 
and  Altruistic  philosophies  to  this  conflict? 
1  he  Egoist,  with  his  respect  for  the  individual 
and  his  instinctive  belief  in  liberty,  is  not  to  be 
drawn  mto  the  "restrictionist"  camp      He 
IS  not  ndden  by  that  cruel  and  most  futile  folly 
of  the  philanthropist-Paternalism.     He  is 
not  moved  by  a  desire  to  do  good  to  others  in 
ways  by  which  he  would  fiercely  resent  having 
good  done  to  him.     In  a  word,  he  never 
thinks  of  coercing  others  for  their  good.    The 
Altruist    on  the  other  hand,  is  a  persistent 
Paternalist.     He  looks  upon  himself  as  a  sort 
of  deputy  "father"  of  as  much  of  the  human 
race  as  he  can  reach.     He  is  quite  ready  to 
look  upon  those  who  disagree  with  him  as 
erring  children,"  and  to  bring  them  under 

173 


i 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIALISM 

school  discipline.  He  naturally  takes  his  plawt 
in  the  ineffective  wing  of  "restrictionist" 
reformers,  and  easily  becomes— in  moments 
of  emotional  exaltation— the  sincere  and 
pitiless  Persecutor. 

The  scope  of  liberty  is  everywhere  and  at 
all  times  the  reliable  indicator  of  human 
progress.    Any  absolute  or  net  diminution 
of  liberty  is  a  backward  step.     Every  tyranny 
is  a  curse.    Yet  every  tyranny  has  had  its 
birth  in  some  voluntary  mutual  measure  to 
secure  an  increase  of  liberty.    Thus,  early 
communities   came  to   have  chiefs   because 
the  communities  which   fought   under  the 
commands  of  their  test  soldier  were  more 
likely  to  win  and  hence  to  secure  wider  and 
surer  liberty.     They  would  never  at  the  first 
have  tolr:  ted  chiefs  if  this  were  not  true. 
If  chiefs  h?  1  been  an  evil,  they  would  have 
combined  against  them  as  against  any  other 
evil.     But  the  chief  did,  on  occasion,  develop 
into  the  tiyant.     Sometimes  it  was  even  better 
to  endure  his  tyranny  than  to  attempt  to  get 
along  without  his  leadership;  and  thus  tyranny 
came  in  many  cases  to  be  tolerated.    Then 

174 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPERIAUSM 

granny  could  be  mi,iga,ed  by  rcolution  and 

gallons.  Finally,  however,  day,  of  Kcuritv 
aro«,  and  tyrannical  leadership  became  Z 
ab«,lu,e  or  net  diminution  of  liberty.  Then 
«  was  a  curse;  and  eveo^^here  people  strove- 
and  are  stnvmg-to  throw  it  off. 

This  is  typical.  MUiurism  may  be  at  one 
«age  a  protector  of  liberty,  and,  at  .m>ther 
«tage  an  enemy.  Religi„„.  „h,„  ^  ^^ 
«n«ly  naaonal,  strengthened  the  arm  of  the 
nation;  now  that  it  has  become  cosmopolitan 
«  IS  doubtful  if  it  has  that  effect.  A„a«^ 
cratjc  central  government  fights  for  Hbe.^ 
■n  tmie  of  war,  and  against  it  in  rime  of  pea« 

TJ.se  things  must  be  judged  by  the  conditions 
**^h  prevail  in  the  world  where  they  must 

«!«.    There  is  no  absolutely  right  form  of 

e.vemmen..    Forms  of  government  must  be 

made  to  fit  the  needs  of  the  hour.    The 

Republic  of  Rome  called  for  a  Dictator  in 

."he"  HK  ^  ■"">  r  V"  ^'««"  P««"ed 
the  liberties  of  the  Republic.     The  English 

Commonwealth  flourished  under  the  Dictitor- 

»75 


THE  ETHICS  OF  IMPEKIALISM 

•hip  of  Cromwell  and  periahed  at  hit  death. 
Yet  when  Dictatorship  is  not  needed,  it 
becomes  a  foe  to  liberty  and  hence  a  ciine. 

Liberty  is  the  certain  test.    Does  it  make 
for  liberty  or  against  it?— that  decides  the 
worth  of  every  human  device.    The  only 
demand  that  dxt  State— i.e.,  the  majority 
of  the  individuals— can  rightfully  make  upon 
the  minority  to  forego  liberty  is  in  order  that 
greater  liberty  be  the  result.    Thus  we  curtail 
the  liberty  of  a  man  to  keep  fowls  in  a  business 
district  in  order  that  the  Kberty  of  others  to 
enjoy  health  and  good  air  may  not  be  unduly 
limited.    And    this    test    must    always    be 
applied.    When  the  liberty  of  the  many  is 
curtailed   in  order  that  k  few  may  enjoy 
a  "privilege,"  there  is  an  absolute  or  net 
reduction  of  liberty  which  is  a  step  backward. 
The  only  foe  to  liberty  among  the  so-called 
ethical   forces   is   Altruism.    It    alone   will 
venture  to  curtail  liberty  in  order  that  good 
may  result.    Egoism,  on   the  other  hand, 
makes  war  upon  every  restriction  to  liberty 
the  moment  it  perceives  clearly  that  it  is 
a  restriction  and  not  a  proteaion.    And  it 

176 


If 


m 

»th. 
>   it 

dee 
the 

nly 
rity 
>on 
hat 
tail 
ess 

to 
Illy 
be 

is 
oy 
let 
•d. 
ed 
Ul 
>d 
d, 

is 
it 


THE  ETHICS  OP  IMPERIALISM 

doe.  ,hi.  for  EipWc  „.»„,,  the  Egoism 
of  the  man  always  knowing  that  it  wiU  fuZ 
mo«  than  it  win  gain  fr„m's„ch:,:^:.t 

J'll  sometimes  tight  for  liberty  where  the  evil 
done  to  other,  by  it,  absence  i,  «ry  1;; 
bu,  even  m  .uch  case.  Altruism  is  veX  Hkelv 
»  want  to  accompany  it,  gift  of  libel  ^th 

Ihe  pomt  .,.  however,  that  Altruism  i,  the 
onJy  force  which  for  "moral"  rea«,„.  iZ 

dSd  '*"'•;  "^  ^«»'-  ■»«••*'' 


Finis 


